| Page Range | 44981-45223 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 81 FR 45177 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 81 FR 45193 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 81 FR 45181 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 81 FR 45135 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 45202 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Supplemental Questionnaire To Determine Identity for a U.S. Passport | |
| 81 FR 45202 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Supplemental Questionnaire To Determine Entitlement for a U.S. Passport | |
| 81 FR 45015 - Special Local Regulations; Marine Events Held in the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone | |
| 81 FR 45136 - Termination of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Dam Safety Study, Lewisville Dam, Elm Fork Trinity River, Denton County, Texas | |
| 81 FR 45222 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee | |
| 81 FR 45160 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 81 FR 45195 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 81 FR 45200 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 81 FR 45126 - Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe (Over 4 1/2 | |
| 81 FR 45124 - Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe (Under 4 1/2 | |
| 81 FR 45128 - Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 | |
| 81 FR 45128 - Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order | |
| 81 FR 45123 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 7-Mayaguez, Puerto Rico; Authorization of Proposed Production Activity; Lilly Del Caribe, Inc., Subzone 7K (Pharmaceutical Products); Carolina and Guayama, Puerto Rico | |
| 81 FR 45123 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 189-Kent, Ottawa and Muskegon Counties, Michigan; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Southern Lithoplate, Inc. (Aluminum Printing Plates); Grand Rapids, Michigan | |
| 81 FR 45121 - General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan | |
| 81 FR 45121 - Notice of Availability of Proposed Changes to the National Poultry Improvement Plan Program Standards | |
| 81 FR 45137 - Reopening; Application Deadline for Fiscal Year 2015; Performance Partnership Pilots | |
| 81 FR 45089 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ferroalloys Production | |
| 81 FR 45148 - Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for May 2016 | |
| 81 FR 45153 - Pesticide Maintenance Fee: Notice of Receipt of Requests to Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide Registrations | |
| 81 FR 45134 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 45167 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 45173 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meetings of the Moving to Work Research Advisory Committee | |
| 81 FR 45138 - Application To Export Electric Energy; Tidal Energy Marketing Inc. | |
| 81 FR 45183 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Establish an Information Collection | |
| 81 FR 45138 - Amended Record of Decision for the Continued Operation of the Y-12 National Security Complex | |
| 81 FR 45169 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; Palliative Care: Conversations Matter® Phase Two Evaluation | |
| 81 FR 45170 - Notice of Correction for Announcement of Requirements and Registration for “Up For A Challenge (U4C)-Stimulating Innovation in Breast Cancer Genetic Epidemiology” | |
| 81 FR 45172 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; America's PrepareAthon! National Day of Action Event Registration | |
| 81 FR 45170 - Expansion of Global Entry Eligibility to All Citizens of the United Kingdom | |
| 81 FR 45024 - Gathering of Certain Plants or Plant Parts by Federally Recognized Indian Tribes for Traditional Purposes | |
| 81 FR 45176 - Utah Resource Advisory Council Meeting | |
| 81 FR 45122 - Revision of Land and Resource Management Plan for the Santa Fe National Forest; Counties of Los Alamos, Mora, Rio Arriba, Sandoval, San Miguel, Santa Fe, and Taos, New Mexico; Correction | |
| 81 FR 45214 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 81 FR 45205 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 81 FR 45213 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 81 FR 45206 - Crash Weighting Analysis | |
| 81 FR 45210 - Crash Preventability Program | |
| 81 FR 45217 - Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption; Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler) | |
| 81 FR 45218 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 81 FR 45184 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 45164 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 81 FR 45166 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 81 FR 45133 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program | |
| 81 FR 45219 - Information Collection, CDFI and NACA Programs | |
| 81 FR 45012 - Cargo Securing Manuals | |
| 81 FR 45222 - Notice of Open Meetings To Prepare the 2016 Annual Report to Congress | |
| 81 FR 45221 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Reverse Mortgage Products: Guidance for Managing Compliance and Reputation Risks | |
| 81 FR 45204 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; (Southwest Airlines Company) | |
| 81 FR 45203 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Ameristar Air Cargo, Inc. | |
| 81 FR 45203 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Airborne Heat Ballooning | |
| 81 FR 45201 - West Virginia Disaster Number WV-00043 | |
| 81 FR 45168 - Meeting of the National Preparedness and Response Science Board | |
| 81 FR 45182 - Determination of the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts Regarding Closure of Portions of Meetings of Advisory Committees (Advisory Panels) | |
| 81 FR 45181 - Determination of the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts Regarding Potential Closure of Portions of Meetings of the National Council on the Arts | |
| 81 FR 45201 - Data Collection Available for Public Comments | |
| 81 FR 45183 - Arts Advisory Panel Meetings | |
| 81 FR 45201 - Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company | |
| 81 FR 45201 - Texas Disaster Number TX-00468 | |
| 81 FR 45068 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2016 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for Gulf of Mexico Greater Amberjack | |
| 81 FR 45012 - Certified Professional Employer Organizations; Correction | |
| 81 FR 45144 - HY Power Energy Company; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
| 81 FR 45145 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-511, FERC-515, and FERC-574); Consolidated Comment Request; Extension | |
| 81 FR 45147 - Loup River Public Power District; Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessment | |
| 81 FR 45141 - Notice of Staff Attendance at the Southwest Power Pool Regional State Committee Meeting | |
| 81 FR 45143 - Terrapin Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 81 FR 45144 - Black Oak Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 81 FR 45143 - Five Points Solar Park LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 81 FR 45140 - Hancock Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 81 FR 45141 - North Star Solar PV LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 81 FR 45144 - Armstrong Power, LLC; Calumet Energy Team, LLC; Northeastern Power Company; Pleasants Energy, LLC; Troy Energy, LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date | |
| 81 FR 45142 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 81 FR 45145 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 81 FR 45219 - Hazardous Materials: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Permit Requirements for Transportation of Hazardous Material | |
| 81 FR 45135 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 45160 - Submission for OMB Review; Cost Accounting Standards Administration | |
| 81 FR 45160 - Notice of Termination; 10421 First Guaranty Bank and Trust Company of Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida | |
| 81 FR 45185 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to BZX Rule 14.11(d) To Add the EURO STOXX 50® Volatility Futures to the Definition of Futures Reference Asset | |
| 81 FR 45196 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules Related to Execution and Priority | |
| 81 FR 45188 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4120 | |
| 81 FR 45190 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Price List | |
| 81 FR 45194 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 3100 | |
| 81 FR 45176 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Museum of the American Indian, Novato, CA | |
| 81 FR 45132 - Request for Nominations of Members To Serve on the National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction | |
| 81 FR 45130 - National Conference on Weights and Measures 101st Annual Meeting | |
| 81 FR 45170 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 81 FR 45180 - NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Heliophysics Subcommittee; Meeting | |
| 81 FR 45022 - Safety Zone; Hudson River, South Nyack and Tarrytown, NY | |
| 81 FR 45039 - Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2 | |
| 81 FR 45118 - Department of the Treasury Acquisition Regulations; Incremental Funding of Fixed-Price, Time-and-Material or Labor-Hour Contracts During a Continuing Resolution | |
| 81 FR 45018 - 2016 Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, Security Zones, Special Local Regulations, Drawbridge Operation Regulations and Regulated Navigation Areas | |
| 81 FR 45008 - Requirement To Notify the IRS of Intent To Operate as a Section 501(c)(4) Organization; Final and Temporary Regulations | |
| 81 FR 45088 - Requirement To Notify the IRS of Intent To Operate as a Section 501(c)(4) Organization | |
| 81 FR 45013 - Special Local Regulation; Drag Boat Championship, Intracoastal Waterway; Bucksport, SC | |
| 81 FR 45070 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company | |
| 81 FR 45075 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 81 FR 44981 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes | |
| 81 FR 44994 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 81 FR 45055 - Disruptions to Communications | |
| 81 FR 45095 - Disruptions to Communications | |
| 81 FR 45079 - Ensuring Program Uniformity at the Hearing and Appeals Council Levels of the Administrative Review Process | |
| 81 FR 45020 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Norwalk River, Norwalk, CT | |
| 81 FR 44989 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 81 FR 45174 - Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Habitat Conservation Plan for the Na Pua Makani Wind Energy Project, Oahu, HI | |
| 81 FR 44987 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes | |
| 81 FR 44983 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 81 FR 45072 - Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Formerly Known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Airplanes | |
| 81 FR 44996 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes | |
| 81 FR 44998 - Availability of Certain North American Electric Reliability Corporation Databases to the Commission | |
| 81 FR 45122 - Southern Arizona Resource Advisory Committee |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Nuclear Security Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Comptroller of the Currency
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 adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440), Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of undesirable changes in the Reference Airspeed (RAS) Bug, occurring during flight without pilot input. This AD requires replacing the flight control computer (FCC). We are issuing this AD to prevent uncommanded pitch changes, which could result in deviation from a safe flight path.
This AD is effective August 16, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 16, 2016.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; fax 516-794-5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440), Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-02, dated January 20, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ”the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440), Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:
There have been numerous reports of uncommanded changes in the Reference Airspeed (RAS) Bug during flight. When the Auto Flight Control System (AFCS) is in a speed mode (CLB, DES, IAS or MACH), the flight director will show vertical guidance to achieve or maintain the reference airspeed. If the autopilot is engaged, the aeroplane will automatically follow that vertical guidance and cause the aeroplane to pitch up or pitch down. Investigation revealed that this uncommanded reference airspeed changes were caused by the FCC that did not correctly read the input data from the Input/Output Concentrator. If not corrected, these uncommanded pitch changes could create hazard for continued safe flight. This [Canadian] AD mandates installation of a new filter to the Input/Output Circuit Card in the FCC.
Uncommanded pitch changes, if not corrected, could result in deviation from a safe flight path. Corrective actions include replacing the FCC. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. The commenter supported the NPRM.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.
We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-22-018, Revision A, dated November 3, 2015; and Service Bulletin 670BA-22-009, dated August 17, 2015. The service information describes procedures for replacing the FCCs. 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 1,008 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.
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 is effective August 16, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD, all serial numbers, that are equipped with a flight control computer (FCC) with a part number and serial number listed in paragraph 1A., “Effectivity”, of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-22-018, Revision A, dated November 3, 2015; or Service Bulletin 670BA-22-009, dated August 17, 2015; as applicable.
(1) Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes.
(2) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes.
(3) Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes.
(4) Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes.
(5) Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 22, Auto Flight.
This AD was prompted by reports of undesirable changes in the Reference Airspeed (RAS) Bug, occurring during flight without pilot input. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncommanded pitch changes, which could result in deviation from a safe flight path.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 33 months after the effective date of this AD: Remove the FCC from the integrated avionic processor system (IAPS) and replace the FCC, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-22-018, Revision A, dated November 3, 2015; or
(2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-22-009, dated August 17, 2015.
As of 12 months after the effective date of this AD, no person may install any FCC having a part or serial number identified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-22-018, Revision A, dated November 3, 2015; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-22-009, dated August 17, 2015; unless “SB 50” is marked on the FCC modification chart (MOD chart).
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-22-018, dated August 17, 2015, as applicable. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-02, dated January 20, 2016, 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) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-22-018, Revision A, dated November 3, 2015.
(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-22-009, dated August 17, 2015.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; Model A330-200 and A330-300 series airplanes; Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes; Model A340-500 series airplanes; and Model A340-600 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that, during an operational test of a ram air turbine (RAT), the RAT did not deploy in automatic mode. This AD requires identification of the manufacturer, part number, and serial number of the RAT, and re-identification and modification of the RAT if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent non-deployment of the RAT, which, if preceded by a total engine flame-out, or during a total loss of normal electrical power generation, could result in reduced control of the airplane.
This AD is effective August 16, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 16, 2016.
For Airbus service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
For Hamilton Sundstrand service information identified in this final rule, contact Hamilton Sundstrand, Technical Publications, Mail Stop 302-9, 4747 Harrison Avenue, P.O. Box 7002, Rockford, IL 61125-7002; telephone 860-654-3575; fax 860-998-4564; email
You may view this referenced 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. It is also available on the Internet at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; Model A330-200 and A330-300 series airplanes; Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes; Model A340-500 series airplanes; and Model A340-600 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 2015-0008, dated January 15, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; Model A330-200, and A330-
During a scheduled Ram Air Turbine (RAT) operational test on an A330 aeroplane, the RAT did not deploy in automatic mode. The subsequent investigation conducted by the RAT manufacturer Hamilton Sundstrand (HS) and Arkwin Industries, revealed that this failure to deploy was due to an inadequate stroke margin in the manufacturing shimming procedure of the actuator deployment solenoids.
This condition, if not corrected, could possibly result in reduced control of the aeroplane, particularly if occurring following a total engine flame out, or during a total loss of normal electrical power generation.
Prompted by this unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A330-29-3126, SB A340-29-4097 and SB A340-29-5025, providing instructions to identify the manufacturer, part number (P/N) and serial number (s/n) of the RAT actuator, and to modify the shimming procedure for the affected RAT actuator.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires identification of the affected RAT actuators and, depending on its configuration (modified or not), the accomplishment of applicable corrective actions [modifying the RAT actuator. Additional actions include re-identifying the RAT actuator part number and RAT part number, as applicable].
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.
Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that the requirement to modify the RAT actuator in paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of the proposed AD be changed from “modify the RAT actuator” to “replace the RAT actuator.” DAL stated that operators cannot ensure that the removed RAT actuator would be modified by the RAT manufacturer by the compliance time specified in the proposed AD.
We agree to provide clarification regarding the requirement to modify the RAT actuator, but we do not agree with the commenter's request to change “modify” to “replace.” The modification procedures described in the Accomplishment Instructions of the Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD include more than just a modification. The modification procedures in the Airbus service information state to (1) remove the actuator from the RAT, (2) send the removed actuator to Hamilton Sundstrand, and (3) install the modified actuator on the RAT and re-identify the part number.
We also agree that operators do not have control over how long it would take Hamilton Sundstrand to modify the actuator, or if the modification could be completed prior to the applicable compliance times in this AD. Therefore, we have revised paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD by removing the word “modify” and replacing it with “remove the actuator from the RAT, install a modified actuator, and re-identify the RAT . . . .”
DAL requested that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD be revised to include a statement that a review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable to determine the supplier, part number, and serial number of the installed RAT actuators if the supplier, part number, and serial number can be conclusively determined from that review. DAL stated that it has already modified airplanes in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-29-3126, dated June 12, 2014, and it tracks the on-wing identification of these RAT components. DAL indicated that allowing operators to review airplane maintenance records to determine the supplier, part number, and serial number of the installed RAT actuators would prevent unnecessary work.
We do not agree with the commenter's request. One of the actions included in the requirement to determine the supplier, part number, and serial number of an installed RAT actuator is looking at the actuator's identification plate. An inspection of the RAT actuator is necessary to determine if the identification plate is present. Paragraphs (g)(3) and (h)(3) of this AD require certain actions if the identification plate of a RAT actuator is missing. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.
DAL requested that the references to Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS06M-29-21, dated May 27, 2014, be changed to ERPS06M-29-21, Revision 1, dated April 14, 2015. DAL noted that the revised service information updates the identification procedures for the RAT actuators, among other changes.
We agree with the commenter that all references to Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS06M-29-21, dated May 27, 2014, should be changed to ERPS06M-29-21, Revision 1, dated April 14, 2015, in this final rule. We have made this change in the “Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51” section in the preamble and paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), and (j) of this AD. We have also included a new paragraph (k) in this AD to provide credit for actions done prior to the effective date of this AD using Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS06M-29-21, dated May 27, 2014. The subsequent paragraphs have been redesignated accordingly.
DAL noted that the “Related ADs” section of the NPRM preamble, and paragraphs (b) and (i) of the proposed AD, referred to AD 2015-26-02, Amendment 39-18350 (80 FR 81174, December 29, 2015) (“AD 2015-26-02”), which was superseded by AD 2016-04-01, Amendment 39-18395 (81 FR 8134, February 18, 2016) (“AD 2016-04-01”). DAL suggested that the references to AD 2015-26-02 be removed and replaced with references to AD 2016-04-01.
We agree with the commenter's suggestion. The “Related ADs” section of the NPRM is not restated in this final rule, but we have revised paragraphs (b) and (i) of this AD to refer to AD 2016-04-01.
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 the following service information, which describes procedures for identifying the supplier, part number, and serial number of the
• Service Bulletin A330-29-3126, dated June 12, 2014.
• Service Bulletin A340-29-4097, dated June 12, 2014.
• Service Bulletin A340-29-5025, dated June 16, 2014.
Hamilton Sundstrand has issued Service Bulletins ERPS06M-29-21, Revision 1, dated April 14, 2015; and ERPS33T-29-7, dated June 6, 2014. This service information describes procedures for identifying the affected RAT actuator and RAT part numbers and serial numbers, modifying affected actuators, and re-identifying affected RAT actuators and RATs.
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 84 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that will be required based on the results of the required inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these replacements:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on 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 is effective August 16, 2016.
This AD affects the ADs specified in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this AD.
(1) AD 2012-21-19, Amendment 39-17235 (77 FR 65812, October 31, 2012) (“AD 2012-21-19”).
(2) AD 2012-21-20, Amendment 39-17236 (77 FR 65799, October 31, 2012) (“AD 2012-21-20”).
(3) AD 2016-04-01, Amendment 39-18395 (81 FR 8134, February 18, 2016) (“AD 2016-04-01”).
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers; except those on which Airbus Modification 204067 has been embodied in production.
(2) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers; except those on which Airbus Modification 204067 has been embodied in production.
(3) Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323,- 341, -342, and -343 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers; except those on which Airbus Modification 204067 has been embodied in production.
(4) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, and -213, airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(5) Airbus Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(6) Airbus Model A340-541 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(7) Airbus Model A340-642 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29, Hydraulic Power.
This AD was prompted by a report indicating that, during an operational test of a ram air turbine (RAT), the RAT did not deploy in automatic mode. We are issuing this AD to prevent non-deployment of the RAT, which, if preceded by a total engine flame-out, or during a total loss of normal electrical power generation, could result in reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes: Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, identify the supplier, part number, and serial number of the installed RAT actuator, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-29-3126, dated June 12, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-4097, dated June 12, 2014; as applicable.
(1) If the supplier identified is Arkwin Industries, and the identified RAT actuator part number and serial number are listed in Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS06M-29-21, Revision 1, dated April 14, 2015, and the serial number is included in table 2 of Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS06M-29-21, Revision 1, dated April 14, 2015, with a description of “correctly shimmed”: Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, re-identify the actuator and the RAT, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-29-3126, dated June 12, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-4097, dated June 12, 2014; as applicable.
(2) If the supplier identified is Arkwin Industries, and the identified actuator RAT part number and serial number are listed in Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS06M-29-21, Revision 1, dated April 14, 2015, and the serial number is included in table 2 of Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS06M-29-21, Revision 1, dated April 14, 2015, with a description of “incorrectly shimmed”: Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, remove the actuator from the RAT, install a modified actuator, and re-identify the RAT, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-29-3126, dated June 12, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-4097, dated June 12, 2014; as applicable.
(3) If the supplier identified is Arkwin Industries, and the identification plate for the RAT actuator is missing, or the part number and serial number are not listed in Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS06M-29-21, Revision 1, dated April 14, 2015: Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, remove the actuator from the RAT, install a modified actuator, and re-identify the RAT, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-29-3126, dated June 12, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-4097, dated June 12, 2014; as applicable.
For Airbus Model A340-500 and -600 airplanes: Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, identify the part number and serial number of the installed RAT actuator, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-5025, dated June 16, 2014.
(1) If the identified RAT actuator part number and serial number are listed in Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS33T-29-7, dated June 6, 2014, and the serial number is included in table 2 of Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS33T-29-7, dated June 6, 2014, with a description of “correctly shimmed”: Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, re-identify the actuator and the RAT, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-5025, dated June 16, 2014.
(2) If the identified RAT actuator part number and serial number are listed in Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS33T-29-7, dated June 6, 2014, and the serial number is included in table 2 of Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS33T-29-7, dated June 6, 2014, with a description of “incorrectly shimmed”: Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, remove the actuator from the RAT, install a modified actuator, and re-identify the RAT, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-5025, dated June 16, 2014.
(3) If the identification plate for the RAT actuator is missing, or the part number and serial number are not listed in Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS33T-29-7, dated June 6, 2014: Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, remove the actuator from the RAT, install a modified actuator, and re-identify the RAT, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-5025, dated June 16, 2014.
(1) For Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, and A330-300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes: Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD constitutes compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2012-21-19, paragraph (g) of AD 2012-21-20, and paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of AD 2016-04-01, for that airplane only.
(2) For Airbus Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes: Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD constitutes compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of AD 2012-21-20, and paragraph (j) of 2016-04-01, for that airplane only.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any RAT actuator or any RAT having a part number identified in table 1 to paragraph (j) of this AD on any airplane, unless it meets the conditions specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; Model A330-200, and A330-300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes: The RAT actuator or RAT has a serial number listed as affected and modified in Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS06M-29-21, Revision 1, dated April 14, 2015, and the RAT has been re-identified in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-29-3126, dated June 12, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-4097, dated June 12, 2014.
(2) For Airbus Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes: The RAT actuator or the RAT has a serial number listed as affected and modified in Hamilton Sundstrand
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the RAT and RAT actuator identification specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD if that identification was performed before the effective date of this AD using Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS06M-29-21, dated May 27, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the RAT or RAT actuator identification and modification specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS06M-29-21, dated May 27, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0008, dated January 15, 2015, 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 (n)(4) and (n)(5) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-29-3126, dated June 12, 2014.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-4097, dated June 12, 2014.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-5025, dated June 16, 2014.
(iv) Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS06M-29-21, Revision 1, dated April 14, 2015.
(v) Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS33T-29-7, dated June 6, 2014.
(3) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
(4) For Hamilton Sundstrand service information identified in this AD, contact Hamilton Sundstrand, Technical Publications, Mail Stop 302-9, 4747 Harrison Avenue, P.O. Box 7002, Rockford, IL 61125-7002; telephone 860-654-3575; fax 860-998-4564; email
(5) 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.
(6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of improperly drilled bores, located on upper and lower stiffener joints to the Web at a certain frame. This AD requires a one-time inspection of the bores, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct an unsatisfactory bore that can adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
This AD is effective August 16, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 16, 2016.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone: 201-440-6700; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X 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 Airworthiness Directive 2015-0204, dated October 8, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation FALCON 7X airplanes. The MCAI states:
On the assembly line of Falcon 7X airplanes, defects were detected on left hand and right hand engine pylons. A quality review revealed that bores located on upper and lower stiffener joints to the web at pylon Frame 41 were improperly drilled. Fettlings of borings, for fixing diameter 4 mm [millimeters] and 5 mm, were found ovalized, too deep and having irregular surface qualities under the head of fixing. Dassault Aviation identified the individual airplanes that are potentially affected by this production deficiency.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, would adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition Dassault Aviation published Service Bulletin (SB) 7X-346 to provide corrective action instructions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time [detailed] visual [and rototest] inspection for unsatisfactory bores and, depending on findings, repair of affected stiffener bores.
A bore is not satisfactory if it has any surface defects greater than or equal to 0.5 mm or if any chamfer dimension or edge distance value is not within the dimensions specified in Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin 7X-346, dated April 24, 2015. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM 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 this AD with the changes described previously 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 Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-346, dated April 24, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a one-time inspection and repair of the bores on stiffeners at Frame 41 on the engine pylons.
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 55 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repair that would be required based on the results of the required inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this repair:
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 is effective August 16, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers 1 through 221 inclusive, except serial numbers 182 and 220.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report of improperly drilled bores, located on upper and lower stiffener joints to the web at a certain frame. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct an unsatisfactory bore that can adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 4,000 flight cycles or 98 months, whichever occurs first since date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, do a detailed visual and rototest inspection of the bores, located on upper and lower stiffener joints to the web at pylon Frame 41, to determine if the bores are not satisfactory, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-346, dated April 24, 2015.
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, it is determined that any bore is not satisfactory: Before further flight, repair affected bores, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-346, dated April 24, 2015, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
Where the Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-346, dated April 24, 2015, specifies to contact Dassault Aviation: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2015-0204, dated October 8, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-346, dated April 24, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone: 201-440-6700; 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), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-14-06 for all Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, and -214 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. AD 2014-14-06 required inspecting the aft engine mount retainers for surface finish, cracks, and failure, and replacement if necessary. This new AD requires repetitive inspections for damaged, cracked, broken, and missing aft engine mount retainers, and replacement if necessary. This AD was prompted by inspection results that have shown that the main cause of crack initiation in the aft engine mount retainers is the vibration dynamic effect that affects both retainers, either with “dull” or “bright” surface finishes. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct failure of retainer brackets of the aft engine mount and consequent loss of the locking feature of the nuts of the inner and outer pins; loss of the pins will result in the aft mount engine link no longer being secured to the aft engine mount.
This AD is effective August 16, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 16, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of August 27, 2014 (79 FR 42655, July 23, 2014).
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
For Goodrich Aerostructures service information identified in this AD, contact Goodrich
You may view this referenced 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. 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 2014-14-06, Amendment 39-17901 (79 FR 42655, July 23, 2014) (“AD 2014-14-06”). AD 2014-14-06 applied to all Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, and -214 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 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 2015-0021, dated February 13, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:
During in-service inspections, several aft engine mount retainers, fitted on aeroplanes equipped with CFM56-5A/5B engines, have been found broken. The results of the initial investigations highlighted that two different types of surface finish had been applied (respectively bright and dull material finishes), and that dull finish affects the strength of the retainer with regard to fatigue properties of the part. The pins which attach the engine link to the aft mount are secured by two nuts, which do not have a self-locking feature; this function is provided by the retainer brackets. In case of failure of the retainer bracket, the locking feature of the nuts of the inner and outer pins is lost; as a result, these nuts could subsequently become loose.
In case of full loss of the nuts, there is the potential to also lose the pins, in which case the aft mount link will no longer be secured to the aft engine mount. The same locking feature is used for the three link assemblies of the aft mount.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-flight loss of an aft mount link, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to person on the ground.
To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2013-0050 (
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, inspection results have shown that the main cause of crack initiation remains the vibration dynamic effect that affects both retainers, either with “dull” or “bright” surface finishes. The non-conforming “dull” surface's pitting is an aggravating factor.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0050, which is superseded, and requires repetitive DET of all aft engine mount retainers and, depending on findings [damaged, cracked, broken, or missing retainers], their replacement.
This [EASA] AD is considered to be an interim action, pending development and availability of a final solution.
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.
Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that we revise paragraph (m) of the NPRM to approve use of a boroscope with 10X magnification when performing the inspection of the center aft engine mount inner retainer as an option to removing the center retainer. DAL stated that this procedure was allowed by the FAA in Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) ANM-116-14-423, dated September 16, 2014, for AD 2014-14-06. DAL stated that this procedure provides an equivalent level of safety since the detectability of the subject condition using this alternate inspection method is the same as a detailed visual inspection using 10X magnification, mirror, and light.
We disagree with DAL's request. AMOC ANM-116-14-423, dated September 16, 2014, provides an AMOC for replacing 10X magnification, mirror, and light with a boroscope with 10X magnification but that AMOC is not an option to removing the center retainer. However, under the provisions of paragraph (q)(1) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of alternative procedures, if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
We have clarified in paragraph (q)(1)(ii) of this AD that AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-14-06, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD.
DAL requested that we permit use of later approved revisions of the service information. DAL stated that Airbus has released Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1060, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2015.
We partially agree with DAL's request. We do not agree to include an allowance for later approved revisions of the referenced service information. When referring to a specific service document in an AD, using the phrase, “or later FAA-approved revisions,” violates the Office of the Federal Register's regulations for approving materials that are incorporated by reference. See 1 CFR 51.1(f).
However, affected operators may request approval to use a later revision of the referenced service document as an alternative method of compliance, under the provisions of paragraph (q)(1) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
We agree to reference to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1060, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2015, in this final rule as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (l) and (m) of this AD (referred to as paragraphs (m) and (n) in the proposed AD).
We have also redesignated paragraph (l) of the proposed AD to paragraph (p)(1) of this AD (the paragraph retains existing credit information) and added new paragraphs (p)(2) and (p)(3) of this AD to provide provisional credit for Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1060, dated October 9, 2014. For operators to obtain credit for Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1060, dated October 9, 2014, for the replacement, operators must use the torque value units applicable to nut item (14) specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1060, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2015. Those torque value units were incorrectly stated in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1060, dated October 9, 2014.
We reviewed the available data, including 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 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 Service Bulletin A320-71-1060, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2015. This service information describes procedures for inspecting the aft engine mount retainers for surface finish (dull or bright), for damaged, cracked, broken, or missing retainers, and replacement.
Goodrich Aerostructures has issued Service Bulletin RA32071-160, dated September 18, 2014. This service information describes procedures for inspecting the aft engine mount inner retainers for cracks or failure, and replacement.
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 922 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2014-14-06, and retained in this AD, take about 3 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are were required by AD 2014-14-06 is $255 per inspection cycle per product (for two engines).
We also estimate that it would take about 10 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD, and 1 work-hour per product to report inspection findings. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $862,070, or $935 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 2 work-hours and require parts costing $10,000, for a cost of $10,170 per product. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these actions.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures
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 is effective August 16, 2016.
This AD replaces AD 2014-14-06, Amendment 39-17901 (79 FR 42655, July 23, 2014) (“AD 2014-14-06”).
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -214 airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.
This AD was prompted by inspection results that have shown that the main cause of crack initiation in the aft engine mount retainers is the vibration dynamic effect that affects both retainers, either with “dull” or “bright” surface finishes. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct failure of retainer brackets of the aft engine mount and consequent loss of the locking feature of the nuts of the inner and outer pins; loss of the pins will result in the aft mount engine link no longer being secured to the aft engine mount.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-14-06, with no changes. Within 3 months after August 27, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-14-06): Do a detailed inspection of the aft engine mount retainers for surface finish (dull or bright), and for cracks and failure, in accordance with Section 4.2.2, “Inspection Requirements,” of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A71N001-12, Rev. 2, dated February 27, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2014-14-06, with no changes. The actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD are not required to be done on airplanes with manufacturer serial numbers 4942 and higher, provided a review of maintenance records verifies that no aft engine mount retainers have been replaced since first flight of the airplane.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2014-14-06, with no changes. If, during the detailed inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any installed dull finish aft engine mount retainer is found without cracks and not failed: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD.
(1) Within 25 flight cycles after doing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Repeat the detailed inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2) Within 50 flight cycles after doing the first detailed inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Replace all dull finish retainers with new retainers, in accordance with Section 4.2.3.1, “Replacement Procedure,” of Airbus AOT A71N001-12, Rev. 2, dated February 27, 2013.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2014-14-06, with no changes. If, during any detailed inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, any installed aft engine mount retainer is found cracked or failed: Before further flight, replace all affected aft engine mount retainers with new retainers, in accordance with Section 4.2.3, “Replacement Procedure,” of Airbus AOT A71N001-12, Rev. 2, dated February 27, 2013.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD 2014-14-06, with no changes. As of August 27, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-14-06), no person may install any aft engine mount retainer with a dull finish on any airplane. The instructions of Airbus AOT A71N001-12, Rev. 2, dated February 27, 2013; or the Accomplishment Instructions of Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-146, Rev. 2, dated July 26, 2012; may be used to verify the correct finish of the part.
At the latest of the applicable times specified in paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(3) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection for damaged, cracked, broken, or missing aft engine mount retainers, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1060, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2015; or Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-160, dated September 18, 2014. Repeat the inspection of the aft engine mount retainers thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months.
(1) Within 12 months since the date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness.
(2) Within 12 months after installation of new retainers.
(3) Within 9 months after the effective date of this AD.
If, during any detailed inspection specified in paragraph (l) of this AD, any installed aft engine mount retainer is found damaged, cracked, broken, or missing: Before further flight, replace all affected aft engine mount retainers with new retainers, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1060, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2015.
Replacement of retainers on an airplane, as required by paragraph (m) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (l) of this AD for that airplane.
Submit a report of positive findings of any inspection required by paragraph (l) of this AD to Airbus at the applicable time specified in paragraph (o)(1) or (o)(2) of this AD. The report must include the inspection results, a description of any discrepancies found, the airplane serial number, and the number of landings and flight hours on the airplane.
(1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(1) This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (l) of AD 2014-14-06, with no changes. This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g), (i), and (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before August 27, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-14-06) using Airbus AOT A71N001-12, Rev. 1, dated August 9, 2012. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (l) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1060, dated October 9, 2014. Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1060, dated October 9, 2014, is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(3) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (m) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1060, dated October 9, 2014, provided that it can be conclusively determined that the torque value units applicable to nut item (14) that are specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1060, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2015, have been used. Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1060, dated October 9, 2014, is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(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 2014-14-06, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g), (i), (j), and (k) of this AD.
Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0021, dated February 13, 2015, 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 (t)(5), (t)(6), and (t)(7) 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.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on August 16, 2016.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1060, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2015.
(ii) Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-160, dated September 18, 2014.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on August 27, 2014 (79 FR 42655, July 23, 2014).
(i) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A71N001-12, Rev. 2, dated February 27, 2013. The first page of this document contains the document number, revision, and date; no other page of this document contains this information.
(ii) Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-146, Rev. 2, dated July 26, 2012.
(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 Goodrich Aerostructures service information identified in this AD, contact Goodrich
(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) 2015-10-03 for certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. AD 2015-10-03 required a detailed inspection for visible chrome of each affected main landing gear (MLG) sidestay upper cardan pin, associated nuts, and retainer assembly; pin replacement if needed; measurement of cardan pin clearance dimensions (gap check); corrective actions if necessary; and a report of all findings. This new AD requires a detailed inspection of the upper cardan pin and nut threads for any corrosion, pitting, or thread damage, and if necessary, replacement of the cardan pin and nut. This new AD also revises the applicability to include additional airplane models. This AD was prompted by a report that an MLG sidestay upper cardan pin migration event had been caused by corrosion due to lack of jointing compound and inadequate sealant application during the MLG installation. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct migration of the sidestay upper cardan pin, which could result in disconnection of the sidestay upper arm from the airplane structure, and could result in a landing gear collapse and consequent damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.
This AD is effective August 16, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 16, 2016.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2015-10-03, Amendment 39-18158 (80 FR 30608, May 29, 2015) (“AD 2015-10-03”). AD 2015-10-03 applied to certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0079, dated May 7, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes. The MCAI states:
An A330 aeroplane equipped with Basic MLG was rolling out after landing when it experienced a nose wheel steering fault (unrelated to the safety subject addressed by this AD), which resulted in the crew stopping the aeroplane on the taxiway after vacating the runway. The subsequent investigation revealed that the right-hand MLG sidestay upper cardan pin had migrated out of position. The sidestay upper cardan nut and retainer had detached from the upper cardan pin and were found, still bolted together, in the landing gear bay.
Prompted by these findings, Airbus published Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A32L003-14, providing inspection instructions and, as an interim solution, EASA issued AD 2014-0066 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2015-10-03, Amendment 39-18158 (80 FR 30608, May 29, 2015)] to require repetitive detailed inspections (DET) of the MLG upper cardan pin, nut and retainer. That AD also required accomplishment of a one-time gap check between wing rear spar fitting lugs and the bush flanges and, depending on findings, corrective action(s). The gap check (including corrections, as necessary) terminated the repetitive DET.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, further investigation concluded that the reported MLG sidestay upper cardan pin migration event had been caused by corrosion, due to lack of jointing compound and inadequate sealant application during MLG installation. Therefore, this issue affects any MLG that had an upper cardan pin replacement or re-installation, irrespective of MLG overhaul. Any corrosion on the upper cardan pin and nut threads would not have been detected during the previously required DET.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to a complete migration of the sidestay upper cardan pin and a disconnection of the sidestay upper arm from the aeroplane structure, possibly resulting in MLG collapse with consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus published Service Bulletin (SB) A330-32-3269, SB A340-32-4301 and SB A340-32-5115 providing inspection instructions. In addition, to prevent any improper re-installation of an upper cardan pin on a MLG, Airbus amended the applicable Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) on 01 October 2014.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD supersedes EASA [AD] 2014-0066 and requires a one-time DET of the MLG upper cardan pin and nut threads to check for corrosion or damage on the upper cardan pin and nut threads, and, depending on findings, replacement of the damaged part(s).
As this unsafe condition could also develop on A330 freighters and A340-500/-600 aeroplanes, this [EASA] AD also applies to those aeroplanes.
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 that comment.
American Airlines (AA) requested that we use the latest service information in the NPRM. AA stated that since the NPRM was issued, Airbus released Service Bulletin A330-32-3269, Revision 01, dated December 3, 2015.
We agree with the commenter for the reasons stated above. We have reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3269, Revision 01, dated December 3, 2015, and there are no substantial changes. In addition, we have also reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4301, Revision 01, dated December 3, 2015; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-5115, Revision 01, dated December 11, 2015. There are no substantial changes. We have revised this AD accordingly.
We reviewed the available data, including 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 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:
The service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection of the upper cardan pin and nut threads for any corrosion, pitting, or thread damage, and replacement of the cardan pin and nut. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 95 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 11 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 $88,825, or $935 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 12 work-hours and require parts costing $78,136, for a cost of $79,156 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.
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 is effective August 16, 2016.
This AD replaces 2015-10-03, Amendment 39-18158 (80 FR 30608, May 29, 2015).
This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, except airplanes on which an upper cardan pin on a main landing gear (MLG) has never been replaced or reinstalled since first entry into service of the airplane.
(1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(3) Airbus Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by a report that an MLG sidestay upper cardan pin migration event had been caused by corrosion due to lack of jointing compound and inadequate sealant application during the MLG installation. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct migration of the sidestay upper cardan pin, which could result in disconnection of the sidestay upper arm from the airplane structure, and could result in a landing gear collapse and consequent damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purpose of this AD, an upper cardan pin on a MLG is affected if it has been
(1) For an affected upper cardan pin on an MLG: Before exceeding 96 months since its latest installation on an airplane, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a detailed inspection of the upper cardan pin and nut threads for any corrosion, pitting, or thread damage, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(2) If, during the detailed inspection specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, any corrosion, pitting, or thread damage is found, before further flight, replace the upper cardan pin and/or nut, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
Do the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3269, Revision 01, dated December 3, 2015 (for Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes).
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4301, Revision 01, dated December 3, 2015 (for Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes).
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-5115, Revision 01, dated December 11, 2015 (for Airbus Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes).
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 applicable service information identified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3269, dated February 17, 2015.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4301, dated February 17, 2015.
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-5115, dated February 17, 2015.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0079, dated May 7, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3269, Revision 01, dated December 3, 2015.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4301, Revision 01, dated December 3, 2015.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-5115, Revision 01, dated December 11, 2015.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that certain maintenance tasks for the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) are inadequate. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new airworthiness limitations for the HSTA. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct premature wear and cracking of the HSTA, which could result in failure of the HSTA and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective August 16, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 16, 2016.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center, toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247, or direct dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 1-514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-30, dated September 5, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. The MCAI states:
A revision has been made to the CL 604/605 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (TLMC) manual, to introduce new tasks for the HSTA. Failure to comply with the TLMC tasks could lead to an unsafe condition.
This [Canadian] AD is issued to ensure that premature wear and cracking of the affected components are detected and corrected.
The unsafe condition is premature wear and cracking of the HSTA, which could result in failure of the HSTA and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
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 that comment.
Bombardier Inc., asked that we change the contact information to include the telephone numbers and email address for the Widebody Customer Response Center. Bombardier Inc. provided the updated information.
We agree with the commenter. We have changed the contact information in this AD accordingly.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the change described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM 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.
Bombardier Inc. has issued the following service information, which describes procedures for revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new airworthiness limitations for the HSTA.
• Section 5-10-40, Certification Maintenance Requirements, of Part 2, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Bombardier Challenger 604 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, Revision 22, dated July 11, 2014.
• Section 5-10-40, Certification Maintenance Requirements, of Part 2, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Bombardier Challenger 605 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, Revision 10, dated July 11, 2014.
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 78 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $6,630, or $85 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this 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 16, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/Ns) 5301 through 5665 inclusive, and 5701 through 5962 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by a determination that certain maintenance tasks for the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) are inadequate. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct premature wear and cracking of the HSTA, which could result in failure of the HSTA and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Task 27-42-01-109, Restoration (Overhaul) of the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator, Part No. 604-92305-7 and Subs (Vendor Part No. 8454-3 and Subs); and Task 27-42-01-111, Detailed Inspection of the Horizontal Trim Actuator (HSTA) Secondary Load Path Indicator, Part No. 604-92305-7 and Subs (Vendor Part No. 8454-3 and Subs); of the applicable document identified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive: Section 5-10-40, Certification Maintenance Requirements, of Part 2, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Bombardier Challenger 604 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, Revision 22, dated July 11, 2014.
(2) For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, serial numbers 5701 through 5962 inclusive: Section 5-10-40, Certification Maintenance Requirements, of Part 2, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Bombardier Challenger 605 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, Revision 10, dated July 11, 2014.
After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-30, dated September 5, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Section 5-10-40, Certification Maintenance Requirements, of Part 2, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Bombardier Challenger 604 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, Revision 22, dated July 11, 2014.
(ii) Section 5-10-40, Certification Maintenance Requirements, of Part 2, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Bombardier Challenger 605 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, Revision 10, dated July 11, 2014.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center, toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247, or direct dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 1-514-855-7401; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Final rule.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) amends its regulations to require the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to provide the Commission, and Commission staff, with access, on a non-public and ongoing basis, to certain databases
1. The Commission amends its regulations, pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
2. Section 215 of the FPA requires the Commission to certify an Electric Reliability Organization (ERO), responsible for developing mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval. Reliability Standards may be enforced by NERC, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently.
3. Section 39.2(d) of the Commission's regulations requires NERC and each Regional Entity to “provide the Commission such information as is necessary to implement section 215 of the Federal Power Act.”
4. The Commission promulgated section 39.2(d) of its regulations in Order No. 672.
The Commission agrees . . . that, to fulfill its obligations under this Final Rule, the ERO or a Regional Entity will need access to certain data from users, owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System. Further, the Commission will need access to such information as is necessary to fulfill its oversight and enforcement roles under the statute.
5. NERC conducts ongoing, mandatory data collections from registered entities to populate databases for transmission outages through TADS, generation outages through GADS, and protection system misoperations through NERC's protection system misoperations database. Each of these NERC databases is discussed below.
6. NERC initiated collection of TADS data on a mandatory basis in 2007 by issuing a data request pursuant to section 1600 of the NERC Rules of Procedure.
7. The TADS database compiles transmission outage data in a common format for: (1) Bulk electric system AC circuits (overhead and underground); (2) transmission transformers (except generator step-up units); (3) bulk electric system AC/DC back-to-back converters; and (4) bulk electric system DC circuits.
8. NERC uses TADS data to develop transmission metrics to analyze outage frequency, duration, causes, and other factors related to transmission outages.
9. NERC's collection of GADS data has been mandatory since 2012, pursuant to a data request issued in accordance with section 1600 of the NERC Rules of Procedure.
10. Currently, GADS collects outage data pertaining to ten types of conventional generating units with capacity of 20 MW and larger, including: (1) Fossil steam including fluidized bed design; (2) nuclear; (3) gas turbines/jet engines; (4) internal combustion engines (diesel engines); (5) hydro units/pumped storage; (6) combined cycle blocks and their related components; (7) cogeneration blocks and their related components; (8) multi-boiler/multi-turbine units; (9) geothermal units; and (10) other miscellaneous conventional generating units (
11. NERC uses GADS data to measure generation reliability and publishes aggregate performance metrics for each NERC Region in publicly available annual state of reliability and reliability assessment reports.
12. The reporting of protection system misoperations data by transmission owners, generator owners and distribution providers has been mandatory since 2011 pursuant to Reliability Standard PRC-004.
13. Currently, the protection system misoperations database collects more than 20 data fields for a reportable misoperation event, including: (1) Misoperation date; (2) event description; (3) protection systems/components that misoperated; (4) equipment removed from service (permanently or temporarily) as the result of the misoperation; (5) misoperation category; and (6) cause(s) of misoperation.
14. Protection system misoperations have exacerbated the severity of most cascading power outages, having played a significant role in the August 14, 2003 Northeast blackout, for example.
15. On September 17, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to amend the Commission's regulations to require NERC to provide the Commission, and Commission staff, with access, on a non-public and ongoing basis, to the TADS, GADS, and protection system misoperations databases regarding U.S. facilities.
16. Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, we amend the Commission's regulations to require NERC to provide the Commission, and Commission staff, with access (
17. As discussed below, the Commission believes that access to these three NERC databases is necessary to carry out the Commission's obligations under section 215 of the FPA. Further, as discussed in Section II.B.1 below, we believe that if access is limited to data mandatorily provided, Commission access to the TADS, GADS, and protection system misoperations databases will not result in a reduction in the level or quality of information that users, owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System share with NERC and the Regional Entities, and will not otherwise result in a so-called chilling effect on NERC's data-gathering efforts. We also discuss the following matters below: (A) Authority to require and need for Commission access to NERC databases; (B) information voluntarily provided; (C) confidential information; (D) NERC's alternative proposal; and (E) information collection.
18. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that its proposed access to the TADS, GADS and protection system misoperations databases regarding U.S. facilities was “necessary to carry out the Commission's statutory authority: (1) To evaluate the need to direct new or modified Reliability Standards under section 215(d) of the FPA; and (2) to better understand NERC's periodic assessments and reports . . . regarding the reliability and adequacy of the Bulk-Power System under section 215(g) of the FPA.”
19. Second, the Commission explained in the NOPR that access to the data would “assist the Commission with its understanding of the reliability and adequacy assessments periodically submitted by NERC pursuant to section 215(g) of the FPA.”
20. Four commenters generally support, or do not oppose, the Commission's proposal to access NERC's TADS, GADS, and protection system misoperations databases.
21. All other commenters, including NERC,
22. The Trade Associations maintain that the Commission does not need access to these NERC databases to fulfill its obligations under FPA section 215, and that the Commission has multiple processes it can use to achieve its stated goals, including events analysis, reviewing patterns and trends in compliance and enforcement, coordination with NERC's technical committees, evaluating NERC's periodic and special reliability assessments, periodic review of individual standards, and discussions on emerging issues at technical conferences and workshops.
The Trade Associations assert that “access to the raw data contained in the databases without NERC and industry analysis will not directly achieve the Commission's goals of identifying gaps in Reliability Standards and in understanding NERC assessments because in and of itself the raw data, without context or NERC technical analysis, does not shed light on these
Further, the Trade Associations and several other commenters argue that the NOPR proposal is not “consistent” with the division of responsibilities between the ERO and the Commission set forth in FPA section 215.
23. The Public Power Associations point out that the Commission is to give due weight to the technical expertise of the ERO under FPA section 215(d)(2) and that FPA section 215(g) does not give the Commission an oversight role in performing periodic assessments of the reliability and adequacy of the Bulk-Power System, and express a general concern that the NOPR “suggests a shift in the balance of responsibilities between NERC and FERC contemplated by FPA section 215.”
24. We find that the Commission's authority to require access to NERC's TADS, GADS, and protection system databases is fully consistent with FPA section 215, and that the NOPR adequately explained why access to that data is necessary for the Commission to carry out its obligations under FPA section 215.
25. First, we disagree with arguments that Commission access to these databases reflects an unwarranted shift in the balance of responsibilities between NERC and the Commission under section 215 of the FPA.
26. Rather, as explained in the NOPR and this Final Rule, the Commission has determined that access to these databases will aid the Commission's implementation of its statutory authority, under section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, to determine whether to require NERC to develop new or modified reliability standards. As with prior instances in which the Commission acted pursuant to this authority,
27. We also disagree with assertions that the requirement in section 215(d)(2) of the FPA that the Commission give “due weight to the technical expertise of the [ERO] with respect to the content of a proposed standard or modification to a reliability standard”
28. Moreover, contrary to several commenters' assertions, nothing in FPA
29. With respect to how the Commission would use the data from the TADS, GADS, and protection system misoperations databases, including the Trade Associations' and others commenters' contention that access to raw data would not be useful in achieving the Commission's objectives, the Commission did not indicate in the NOPR that it would rely exclusively on such data in assessing the need for NERC to develop new or modified Reliability Standards or to better understand NERC's reliability assessments. Instead, the Commission has identified data that would assist in carrying out FPA section 215, and the Commission intends to analyze data from the NERC databases in addition to data from other existing resources (
30. We recognize, however, that we will be able to better evaluate the usefulness of the data in question as the Commission gains experience analyzing those data. Accordingly, we will continue to assess our need for access to these NERC databases after we gain adequate experience with this data following implementation of the new regulation.
31. NERC and a number of other commenters raise concerns about the impact of the Commission's access to the TADS, GADS, and protection system misoperations databases on the overall quality of data shared with NERC, asserting that such access may negatively impact the industry's provision of voluntary data to NERC, and that it otherwise raises confidentiality concerns that may not be easily addressed. The Trade Associations and other commenters argue that these concerns should preclude the Commission's moving forward with any requirement to provide Commission access to the raw data in the TADS, GADS, and protection system misoperation databases, while NERC and other commenters suggest an alternative approach (discussed in Section II.B.3, below) that would provide the Commission with limited access to the databases while attempting to more fully protect confidential or sensitive information provided to NERC by users, owners, and operators of the Bulk-Power System.
32. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to amend its regulations to require NERC to provide the Commission with access to the TADS, GADS and protection system misoperations databases. The Commission explained that these databases are populated with data collected through mandatory NERC data requests or Reliability Standards and that the access proposed in the NOPR would be limited to U.S. facilities.
33. NERC contends that the NOPR proposal could have a negative impact on the quality and level of data voluntarily submitted by industry to NERC (
34. The Public Power Associations and CEA agree with NERC's concerns and add that, if the Commission chooses to adopt the NOPR proposal, the Final Rule should clarify that the Commission will only use the accessed data for the purposes stated in the NOPR and not for compliance or enforcement purposes.
35. The Trade Associations also agree with NERC's concerns and, more broadly, argue that the NOPR proposal could “chill” industry information-sharing with NERC generally. The Trade Associations state that this chilling effect will be “more profound” if the Commission should, in the future, request access to other NERC databases that rely on voluntary information-sharing (such as NERC's Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center), or if the databases “are used for non-reliability purposes, such as economic policy and enforcement purposes.”
36. In the NOPR, the Commission expressly proposed to exclude from the database access requirement information concerning non-U.S. facilities, and we will maintain that exclusion in the regulation as adopted. The Commission agrees with CEA that this exclusion can be clarified through a modification to the language of the proposed regulation, and we, accordingly, add a new sentence to the end of the regulation to clarify that Commission access will be limited to data regarding U.S. facilities.
37. In addition, while the NOPR did not explicitly state that the Commission's access to data would be limited to data provided to NERC as part of a mandatory data request or other NERC requirement, the Commission believes that it can achieve its objectives as stated in the NOPR with access to mandatorily-provided data only. Adopting this approach should mitigate NERC's and other commenters' concerns regarding the impact of the proposed regulation on the level and quality of voluntary information-sharing with NERC and the Regional Entities. Because the Commission will only be accessing data that entities are
38. While NERC maintains that entities may be hesitant to provide voluntary information to NERC or the Regional Entities because the Commission could seek to access that information in the future, we do not find these arguments to be persuasive, particularly in light of the Commission's decision to exclude voluntarily-provided information from the scope of the Final Rule. Moreover, we find that these concerns do not override our need for the data contained in NERC's TADS, GADS, and protection system misoperation databases.
39. With respect to requests to limit our use of the data accessed, the Commission's intent in seeking access to the data is as stated in the NOPR (
40. In the NOPR, the Commission recognized that its proposal to access data in the TADS, GADS, and protection system misoperations databases “might raise confidentiality issues,” and stated that if the collected data include confidential information it would “take appropriate steps, as provided for in our governing statutes and regulations, in handling such information.”
41. NERC and industry commenters identify maintaining the confidentiality of TADS, GADS, and protection system misoperations data accessed by the Commission as a major concern with the NOPR proposal. NERC contends that treating such data as confidential is appropriate because “the detailed data implicated by the NOPR could be misused to target vulnerabilities in the [Bulk-Power System].”
42. Similarly, the Trade Associations maintain that the regulation, if adopted, “would create a heightened risk of improper disclosure of the GADS, TADS, and misoperations information, risking harm to the Commission's jurisdictional markets and the security of the nation's bulk-power system.”
43. Resilient Societies, by contrast, objects to the NOPR's proposal to preserve the confidentiality of the accessed data, raising a concern that the Commission might be restricted “from analyzing the NERC data and then using conclusions developed thereby to support rulemaking or other public policy actions.”
44. It is clear from the record that maintaining the confidentiality of data included in the TADS, GADS, and protection system operations databases is a significant concern to NERC and the entities that provide information to these databases. The Commission recognizes that information contained in the TADS, GADS, and protection system misoperation databases may be sensitive, and that such information may qualify as CEII under the
45. As stated in the NOPR, the Commission commits that we will take appropriate steps in handling such information, in accordance with our governing statutes and regulations. Subsequent to the issuance of the NOPR, the Commission's authority to safeguard sensitive information has been enhanced through the recent enactment of FPA section 215A.
46. We determine that the Commission's expanded authority to safeguard sensitive information adequately addresses the concerns raised in the comments regarding confidentiality. By deferring Commission access to the databases until issuance of a final rule implementing the new “critical electric infrastructure information” protection, we will ensure that the Commission has the full authority of that law at its disposal to protect against the improper disclosure of “critical electric infrastructure information” contained in the databases.
47. Moreover, whatever potential risks might remain regarding the dissemination of GADS, TADS, and protection system misoperations database data do not, in our view, outweigh the need for Commission access to carry out our statutory responsibilities under FPA section 215. Since passage of the EPAct in 2005, the Commission has generally had to rely on aggregated and summarized data in its assessments of the state of reliability and of the efficacy of current Reliability Standards. Based on that experience, the Commission has determined that such aggregated and summarized data do not allow the Commission to perform the reliability analyses necessary to accomplish the purposes of this rule.
48. Under the Commission's proposed regulation, NERC would be required to provide the Commission access to the mandatory TADS, GADS, and protection system misoperations databases regarding U.S. facilities, on a non-public and on-going basis as soon as the proposed regulation becomes effective.
49. NERC proposes a two-phase alternative approach to avoid a number of the concerns NERC and the industry have with the NOPR proposal. In the first phase, NERC would provide anonymized data to the Commission “within 90 days of the Commission's order on the NOPR.”
50. Several industry commenters support NERC's alternative approach, including CEA, KCP&L, NWPPA, and WECC.
51. Resilient Societies opposes NERC's proposed alternative approach because it contends that “[o]nly by knowing the location of TADS and GADS events, and by cross-referencing to network configuration, will analysts at FERC be able to fully understand reasons for equipment failure, system misoperations, or grid outages.”
52. We are not persuaded that the anonymized data, in the form offered by NERC, would provide the Commission with sufficiently useable information to achieve its objectives as stated in the NOPR. Were NERC to fully anonymize the databases, it would have to mask not only fields that directly identify entities (
53. The masking of such information would limit the Commission's ability,
54. In addition, masking of information used to locate or identify outages of specific transmission or generation facilities would limit the Commission's ability to identify affected regional or sub-regional vulnerabilities, and accordingly limit its ability to make recommendations regarding the efficacy of existing regional Reliability Standards or the need for new or modified regional Reliability Standards. This aggregation or masking of information would also limit the Commission's ability to understand the causes of cascading failures where multiple outages occur in sequence and in close proximity or match the databases with other sources of information such as disturbance reporting data currently provided by NERC. For all of these reasons, we find that anonymized data taken from the databases would not allow the Commission to achieve the objectives set out in the NOPR. Accordingly, we find NERC's proposal not to be a viable alternative to the NOPR proposal.
55. The following collection of information contained in this Final Rule is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
56. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that the proposed regulation would make TADS, GADS, and protection system misoperations data regarding U.S. facilities, currently collected by NERC, available to the Commission and its staff on a non-public and ongoing basis. The Commission stated that the new regulation would not require NERC to collect new information, compile information into any kind of report, or reformulate its raw data. The Commission also stated its belief that it could be relatively straightforward for NERC to provide the Commission, and Commission staff, with access to TADS, GADS, and protection systems misoperations data, and noted that various entities currently have access to these data via an existing web interface. Accordingly, the Commission estimated that the one-time burden associated with compliance with the proposed rule would be
57. The Commission solicited comments on the need for the required information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques. Specifically, the Commission asked that any revised burden or cost estimates submitted by commenters be supported by sufficient detail to understand how the estimates are generated.
58. The Trade Associations argue that the Commission's burden estimate as stated in the NOPR is deficient because it overlooks the burden on users, owner, and operators of the Bulk-Power System of providing the underlying data to NERC.
59. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission adopts the Information Collection Statement included in the NOPR (
60. With respect to the Trade Associations' assertion that the NOPR's Information Collection analysis overlooks the burden imposed on registered entities by NERC's underlying reporting requirements, we do not agree that the Paperwork Reduction Act requires an examination of underlying information collection burdens that exist independent of the proposed regulation. In this case, the burden on the entities required to report data on U.S. facilities to NERC is already in place and remains mandatory and unchanged regardless of whether the Commission adopts the regulation or not.
61. Furthermore, contrary to the Trade Associations' assertions, OMB has reviewed the information collection burden associated with the underlying obligation on users, owners, and operators of the Bulk-Power System to report misoperations data to NERC. In approving earlier versions of the Reliability Standard that first imposed such a reporting obligation (
62. Finally, the Trade Associations are incorrect with respect to the scope of existing FERC-725 (Certification of Electric Reliability Organization; Procedures for Electric Reliability Standards), which covers the ERO's obligation to provide data to the Commission. FERC-725 includes information required by the Commission to implement the statutory provisions of section 215 of the FPA, and includes the burden, reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with: (a) Self Assessment and ERO Application, (b) Reliability Assessments, (c) Reliability Standards Development, (d) Reliability Compliance, (e) Stakeholder Survey, and (f) Other Reporting.
63. As a result, this Final Rule will be submitted to OMB for review and approval as a “no material or nonsubstantive change to a currently approved collection.”
64. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email:
65. Comments concerning the information collections approved in this Final Rule and the associated burden estimates, should be sent to the Commission in this docket and may also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) 395-0710, fax: (202) 395-7285]. For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the following email address:
66. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
67. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
68. The Commission is amending its regulations to require only the ERO (
69. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
70. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
71. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
72. These regulations are effective July 12, 2016. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. The Commission will submit the Final Rule to both houses of Congress and to the General Accountability Office.
By the Commission.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Chapter I, Title 18,
16 U.S.C. 824o.
(c) The Electric Reliability Organization shall make available to the Commission, on a non-public and ongoing basis, access to the Transmission Availability Data System, Generator Availability Data System, and protection system misoperations databases, or any successor databases thereto. Such access will be limited to:
(1) Data regarding U.S. facilities; and
(2) Data that is required to be provided to the ERO.
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final and temporary regulations.
This document contains final and temporary regulations relating to the requirement, added by the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015, that organizations must notify the IRS of their intent to operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). The regulations affect organizations described in section 501(c)(4) (section 501(c)(4) organizations) that are organized after December 18, 2015, and certain section 501(c)(4) organizations existing on that date. The text of the temporary regulations serves as the text of the proposed regulations set forth in the related notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-101689-16) published in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the
Chelsea Rubin at (202) 317-5800 (not a toll-free number).
The collection of information contained in these final and temporary regulations will be reviewed and, pending receipt and evaluation of public comments, approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1545-2268.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.
For further information concerning this collection of information, please refer to the preamble to the cross-referencing notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the
Books and records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
This Treasury decision contains temporary regulations under section 506 of the Code. Section 405 of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-113, div. Q) (the PATH Act), enacted on December 18, 2015, added section 506 to the Code and amended sections 6033 and 6652. Because the statutory provisions were effective upon enactment and certain section 501(c)(4) organizations must notify the IRS within 60 days of formation, these temporary regulations are necessary to provide prompt guidance to enable section 501(c)(4) organizations to satisfy the new statutory notification requirement and provide appropriate transition relief.
Section 501(a) of the Code generally provides that an organization described in section 501(c) is exempt from federal income tax. Section 501(c)(4) describes certain civic leagues or organizations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare and certain local associations of employees. An organization is described in section 501(c)(4) and exempt from tax under section 501(a) if it satisfies the requirements applicable to such status. Subject to certain exceptions, section 6033, in part, requires organizations exempt from taxation under section 501(a) to file annual information returns or notices, as applicable.
Although an organization may apply to the IRS for recognition that the organization qualifies for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(4), there is no requirement to do so (except as provided in section 6033(j)(2), which requires organizations that lose tax-exempt status for failure to file required annual information returns or notices and want to regain tax-exempt status to apply to obtain reinstatement of such status). Accordingly, a section 501(c)(4) organization that files annual information returns or notices, as required under section 6033, need not seek an IRS determination of its qualification for tax-exempt status in order to be described in and operate as a section 501(c)(4) organization.
Section 405(a) of the PATH Act added section 506 to the Code, requiring an organization to notify the IRS of its intent to operate as a section 501(c)(4) organization. In addition, section 405(b) and (c) of the PATH Act amended sections 6033(f) and 6652(c), relating to information that section 501(c)(4) organizations may be required to include on their annual information returns and penalties for certain failures by tax-exempt organizations to comply with filing or disclosure requirements, respectively.
Section 506(a) requires a section 501(c)(4) organization, no later than 60 days after the organization is established, to notify the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury (Secretary) that it is operating as a section 501(c)(4) organization (the notification). Section 506(b) provides that the notification must include: (1) The name, address, and taxpayer identification number of the organization; (2) the date on which, and the state under the laws of which, the organization was organized; and (3) a statement of the purpose of the organization. Section 506(c) requires the Secretary to send the organization an acknowledgment of the receipt of its notification within 60 days. Section 506(d) permits the Secretary to extend the 60-day notification period for reasonable cause. Section 506(e) provides that the Secretary shall impose a reasonable user fee for submission of the notification. Section 506(f) provides that, upon request by an organization, the Secretary may issue a determination with respect to the organization's treatment as a section 501(c)(4) organization and that the organization's request will be treated as an application for exemption from taxation under section 501(a) subject to public inspection under section 6104.
In addition, the PATH Act amended section 6033(f) to require a section 501(c)(4) organization submitting the notification to include with its first annual information return after submitting the notification any additional information prescribed by regulation that supports the organization's treatment as a section 501(c)(4) organization.
The PATH Act also amended section 6652(c) to impose penalties for failure to submit the notification by the date and in the manner prescribed in regulations. In particular, section 6652(c)(4)(A) imposes a penalty on an organization that fails to submit the notification equal to $20 per day for each day such failure continues, up to a maximum of $5,000. Additionally, section 6652(c)(4)(B) imposes a similar penalty on persons who fail to timely submit the notification in response to a written request by the Secretary.
Section 405(f) of the PATH Act provides that, in general, the requirement to submit the notification and the related amendments to sections 6033 and 6652 apply to section 501(c)(4) organizations that are established after December 18, 2015, the date of enactment of the PATH Act. Section 405(f)(2) of the PATH Act provides that these provisions also apply to any other section 501(c)(4) organizations that had not, on or before the date of enactment of the PATH Act: (1) Applied for a written determination of recognition as a section 501(c)(4) organization (using Form 1024, “Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(a)”); or (2) filed at least one annual information return or notice required under section 6033(a)(1) or (i) (that is, a Form 990, “Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax,” or, if eligible, Form 990-EZ, “Short Form Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax,” or Form 990-N (e-Postcard)). Organizations described in section 405(f)(2) of the PATH Act must submit the notification within 180 days after the date of enactment of the PATH Act.
The Treasury Department and the IRS issued Notice 2016-09 (2016-6 IRB 306 (February 8, 2016)) to provide interim guidance regarding section 405 of the PATH Act. Specifically, Notice 2016-09 extended the due date for submitting the notification until at least 60 days from the date that implementing regulations are issued in order to provide adequate transition time for organizations to comply with the new requirement to submit the notification. Notice 2016-09 further stated that no penalties under section 6652(c)(4) would apply to a section 501(c)(4) organization that submits the notification by the due date provided in the regulations.
With respect to the separate procedure by which an organization may request a determination from the IRS that it qualifies for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(4), Notice 2016-09 stated that organizations seeking IRS recognition of section 501(c)(4) status should continue using Form 1024 until further guidance is issued. Notice 2016-09 also clarified that the filing of Form 1024 does not relieve an organization of the requirement to submit the notification. The Treasury Department and the IRS received a public comment in response to Notice 2016-09, which was considered in drafting these temporary regulations.
The temporary regulations prescribe the manner in which an organization must notify the IRS, consistent with section 506, that it is operating as a section 501(c)(4) organization. In addition, the temporary regulations clarify that the submission of the notification does not constitute a request by an organization for a determination from the IRS that it qualifies for tax-exempt status.
The IRS has developed a new electronic form, Form 8976, “Notice of Intent to Operate Under Section 501(c)(4),” for use by organizations submitting the notification. In accordance with section 506(a), the temporary regulations generally require a section 501(c)(4) organization to submit the notification to the IRS on Form 8976 (or its successor) no later than 60 days after the date the organization is organized. The Form 8976 must be submitted in accordance with the form and its instructions.
Consistent with section 506(b), the temporary regulations specify that the notification must include: (1) The name, address, and taxpayer identification number of the organization; (2) the date on which, and the state or other jurisdiction under the laws of which, the organization was organized; and (3) a statement of the purpose of the organization. In addition, the temporary regulations provide that the notification must include such additional information as may be specified in published guidance in the Internal Revenue Bulletin or in other guidance, such as forms or instructions, issued with respect to the notification. To ensure that the statutorily required items of information in the notification are correlated accurately within existing IRS systems, Form 8976 requires organizations to provide their annual accounting period.
The temporary regulations also provide that the notification must be accompanied by payment of the reasonable user fee authorized by section 506(e), which will be set forth by published guidance in the Internal Revenue Bulletin or in other guidance, such as forms or instructions, issued
Further, the temporary regulations provide that, within 60 days after receipt of the notification, the IRS will send the organization an acknowledgment of such receipt. The temporary regulations clarify that this acknowledgment is not a determination with respect to tax-exempt status. Thus, it is not a determination on which an organization may rely or a determination or a failure to make a determination with respect to which the organization may seek declaratory judgment under section 7428. For further information regarding the interaction of the section 506 notification requirement with the separate procedure by which an organization may request an IRS determination that it qualifies for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(4), see section 5 of this Explanation of Provisions.
Finally, the temporary regulations provide that additional guidance on the procedures for submitting the notification may be provided in published guidance in the Internal Revenue Bulletin or in other guidance, such as forms or instructions, issued with respect to the notification. On July 8, 2016, the IRS released Rev. Proc. 2016-41, 2016-30 IRB xxxx, which provides additional information on the procedure for submitting the Form 8976.
A public comment submitted in response to Notice 2016-09 suggested that section 506(a) should not apply to foreign organizations that do not conduct significant activities (other than investment activities) in the United States, even if the organizations may be required to submit a Form 990 to the IRS. As the commenter notes, foreign section 501(c)(4) organizations generally are required to file an annual information return or notice with the IRS under section 6033.
Under section 405(f)(2) of the PATH Act, the requirement to submit the notification does not apply to certain organizations that notified the IRS of their existence on or before December 18, 2015. The Treasury Department and the IRS recognize that, since the enactment of the PATH Act but before the availability of the new electronic Form 8976 for submitting the notification, additional section 501(c)(4) organizations may have notified the IRS of their existence by applying for a written determination of tax-exempt status or filing a required annual information return or notice. Accordingly, to reduce the burden on these organizations and the IRS, the temporary regulations provide relief from the requirement to submit the notification for any section 501(c)(4) organization that, on or before July 8, 2016, either: (1) Applied for a written determination of recognition as a section 501(c)(4) organization (using Form 1024); or (2) filed at least one annual return or notice required under section 6033(a)(1) or (i) (that is, a Form 990 or, if eligible, Form 990-EZ or Form 990-N).
In order to allow adequate transition time for organizations that do not qualify for this transition relief to submit the notification in the manner prescribed by these regulations, the temporary regulations provide that an organization that was organized on or before July 8, 2016, will have until September 6, 2016, which is 60 days from the date that the regulations are filed with the
For information on the applicable penalties for failure to submit the notification, the temporary regulations refer to section 6652(c)(4), which imposes penalties on the organization and on persons who fail to timely submit the notification in response to a written request by the Secretary, as well as section 6652(c)(5), which provides a reasonable cause exception, and section 6652(c)(6), which provides other special rules that generally apply for purposes of section 6652(c) penalties.
Under section 6652(c)(5), no penalty will be imposed with respect to a failure to submit the notification if it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause. Rev. Proc. 2016-41 addresses reasonable cause for abating a section 6652(c)(4) penalty.
Under section 6652(c)(6), the section 6652(c)(4)(B) penalty imposed on “persons” who fail to timely submit the notification in response to a written request by the Secretary applies to any officer, director, trustee, employee, or other individual who is under a duty to submit the notification. In addition, under section 6652(c)(6), if more than one person is liable for the section 6652(c)(4)(B) penalty, all such persons will be jointly and severally liable with respect to the failure to submit the notification.
Section 506(f) provides that an organization subject to the section 506 notification requirement may request a determination to be treated as an organization described in section 501(c)(4). This indicates that the procedure by which an organization may request a determination that it is described in section 501(c)(4) is separate from the procedure for submitting the notification. Accordingly, the temporary regulations provide that submission of the notification does not constitute a request for an IRS determination that the organization qualifies for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(4). Rather, an organization that seeks IRS recognition of tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(4) must separately request a determination in the manner prescribed in Revenue Procedure 2016-5, or its successor.
If an organization receives a determination from the IRS recognizing tax-exempt status, the organization's application, supporting papers, and final determination letter are open to public inspection under section 6104(a)(1) and (d). The notification, by contrast, is not open for public inspection because it is not an application within the meaning of section 6104.
Section 6033(f)(2), as amended by the PATH Act, provides that the IRS may require an organization that submits the
For copies of recently issued revenue procedures, revenue rulings, notices, and other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin, please visit 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 assessment is not required. It has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. For applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, please refer to the cross-referencing notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the
The principal author of these regulations is Chelsea R. Rubin, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 602 are amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(a)
(2)
(i) The name, address, and taxpayer identification number of the organization.
(ii) The date on which, and the state or other jurisdiction under the laws of which, the organization was organized (that is, formed as a legal entity). For an organization formed outside the United States, the jurisdiction is the foreign country under the laws of which it is organized.
(iii) A statement of the purpose of the organization.
(iv) Such additional information as may be specified in published guidance in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter) or in other guidance, such as forms or instructions, issued with respect to the notification.
(3)
(4)
(b)
(i) Applied for a written determination of recognition as an organization described in section 501(c)(4) in accordance with § 1.501(a)-1 and all applicable guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter), forms, and instructions; or
(ii) Filed at least one annual information return or annual electronic notification required under section 6033(a)(1) or (i).
(2)
(i) Applied for a written determination of recognition as an organization described in section 501(c)(4) in accordance with § 1.501(a)-1 and all applicable guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter), forms, and instructions; or
(ii) Filed at least one annual information return or annual electronic notification required under section 6033(a)(1) or (i).
(3)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(b) * * *
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final and temporary regulations; correction.
This document contains corrections to final and temporary regulations (TD 9768) that were published in the
This correction is effective on July 12, 2016 and applicable on May 6, 2016.
Melissa L. Duce at (202) 317-6798 (not a toll free number).
The final and temporary regulations (TD 9768) that are the subject of this correction are under sections 3511, and 7705 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the final and temporary regulations (TD 9768) contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.
Accordingly, the final and temporary regulations (TD 9768), that are the subject of FR Doc. 2016-10700, are corrected as follows:
1. On page 27320, in the preamble, the third column, the fourth line from the top of the footnote, the language “by chapter 23 of Code, the IRS expects to evaluate” is corrected to read “by chapter 23 of the Code, the IRS expects to evaluate”.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Interim rule; information collection approval.
The Coast Guard announces that it has received approval from the Office of Management and Budget for an information collection request associated with the Cargo Securing Manuals interim rule we published in the
On June 23, 2016, OMB approved the Coast Guard's collection of information request associated with the Cargo Securing Manuals interim rule published May 9, 2016 at 81 FR 27992. OMB's approval for this collection of information expires on June 30, 2019.
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Ken Smith, Environmental Standards Division (CG-OES-2), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1413, email
To view OMB's approval memo or the Cargo Securing Manuals interim rule, go to
On May 9, 2016, the Coast Guard published an interim rule (81 FR 27992) that implemented cargo securing manual requirements. Part 97, subpart A, and § 160.215 of 33 CFR and 46 CFR 97.12-10 in that rule contain collection-of-information provisions that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. On June 23, 2016, the OMB approved the Coast Guard's collection of information request for this interim rule and assigned OMB Control Number 1625-0122 to the new collection entitled, Cargo Securing Manuals. The approval for this collection of information expires on June 30, 2019.
This document is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
Coast Guard, DHS
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina during the Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Championship, on August 13, 2016 and August 14, 2016. This special local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and the general public during the event. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from August 13, 2016 through August 14, 2016.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email Lieutenant John Downing, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, email
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
On December 27, 2015, the Bucksport Marina notified the Coast Guard that it will sponsor a series of drag boat races from noon to 7 p.m. on August 13, 2016 and August 14, 2016. In response, on April 6, 2016, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking titled Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Championship, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Bucksport, SC. There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this special local regulation. During the comment period that ended May 6, 2016, we received no comments.
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the rule is to insure safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the two days of drag boat races.
As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published April 6, 2016. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
On August 13, 2016 and August 14, 2016, Bucksport Marina will host a series of drag boat races on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina during the Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Championship. Approximately 75 powerboats are anticipated to participate in the races and approximately 35 spectator vessels are expected to attend the event. This rule establishes a special local regulation on certain waters on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina. The special local regulation will be enforced daily from noon until 7 p.m. on August 13, 2016 and August 14, 2016.
Except for those persons and vessels participating in the drag boat races, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within any of the race areas unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within any of the race areas may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843)740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race areas is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of
The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) Non-participant persons and vessels may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the enforcement periods if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; (2) vessels not able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative may operate in the surrounding areas during the enforcement period; (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the special local regulation to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners; and (4) the safety zone will impact only a small designated area of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway for the 2 days of August 13, and 14, 2016 from noon to 7 p.m., and thus is limited in time and scope.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owner or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction.
An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Marine Safety Information Bulletins, Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing three special local regulations for three separate marine events within the Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound (LIS) Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone. This temporary final rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during these events. Entry into, transit through, mooring, or anchoring within these regulated areas is prohibited unless authorized by COTP Sector Long Island Sound.
This rule is effective without actual notice from 12:01 a.m. on July 12, 2016 until 11:00 a.m. on August 6, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from the date the rule was signed, June 23, 2016, until July 12, 2016.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, contact Petty Officer Jay TerVeen, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, telephone (203) 468-4446, email
This rulemaking establishes three special local regulations for two swim events and one fireworks display. Each event and its corresponding regulatory history are discussed below.
The Jones Beach State Park Fireworks is a recurring marine event with regulatory history. This recurring event is codified in Table 1 to 33 CFR 165.151 (7.19). The Coast Guard is using a Special Local Regulation for this event due to a determination that a safety zone will be insufficient to mitigate the event's extra and unusual hazards this year.
The Mystic Sharkfest Swim is a recurring marine event with regulatory history. A special local regulation was established in 2015 for the Mystic Sharkfest Swim event when the Coast Guard issued a temporary rule entitled, “Special Local Regulation; Mystic Sharkfest Swim; Mystic River; Mystic, CT.”
Island Beach Two Mile Swim is a recurring marine event with regulatory history. A special local regulation was established for this event on July 29, 2015 via a temporary final rule entitled, “Special Local Regulations; Marine Events held in the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone.” This rule was published on August 13, 2015 in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. There is insufficient time to publish an NPRM, take public comments, and issue a final rule before these events take place. Thus, waiting for a comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard's mission to keep the ports and waterways safe.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the same reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1233.
The COTP Sector LIS has determined that the special local regulations established by this temporary final rule are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during these events.
This rule establishes three special local regulations for two swim events and one fireworks show. The locations of these regulated areas are as follows:
This rule establishes additional vessel movement rules within areas specifically under the jurisdiction of the special local regulations during the periods of enforcement unless authorized by the COTP or designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: (1) The enforcement of these regulated areas will be relatively short in duration, (2) persons or vessels desiring entry into the “No Entry” areas or a deviance from the stipulations within the “Slow/No Wake Areas” may be authorized to do so by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative, may do so with permission from the COTP Sector LIS or a designated representative; (3) vessels can operate within the regulated area provided they do so in accordance with the regulation and (4) before the effective period, public notifications will be made to local mariners through appropriate means, which may include the Local Notice to Mariners as well as Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit these regulated areas may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This temporary rule involves the establishment of three regulated areas. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination will be available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) Operators of vessels desiring to deviate from these regulations should contact the COTP Sector Long Island Sound at (203) 468-4401 (Sector LIS command center) or the designated representative via VHF channel 16 to obtain permission to do so.
(3) Any vessel given permission to deviate from these regulations must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound, or the designated on-scene representative.
(4) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of expired temporary rules issued.
This document provides notice of substantive rules issued by the Coast Guard that were made temporarily effective but expired before they could be published in the
This document lists temporary Coast Guard rules that became effective, primarily between January 2016 and March 2016, unless otherwise indicated,
Temporary rules listed in this document may be viewed online, under their respective docket numbers, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For questions on this notice contact Yeoman First Class Maria Fiorella Villanueva, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, telephone (202) 372-3862.
Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations.
Timely publication of these rules in the
The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between September 2013-March 2016 unless otherwise indicated. To view copies of these rules, visit
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that governs the Metro-North WALK Bridge across the Norwalk River, mile 0.1, at Norwalk, Connecticut. The bridge owner submitted a request to require a greater advance notice for bridge openings and to increase time periods the bridge remains in the closed position during the weekday morning and evening rush hours. It is expected that this change to the regulations will create efficiency in drawbridge operations while continuing to meet the reasonable needs of navigation.
This rule is effective August 11, 2016.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Christopher J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District, Coast Guard; telephone (212) 514-4331 or email
The Coast Guard twice published a notice of proposed rulemaking to adjust when the draw of the Metro-North WALK Bridge will be available to open Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. In response to comments received to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), published in August 2015 (80 FR 52423), the Coast Guard conducted further review of tidal data, bridge logs and train schedules.
On April 4, 2016, we published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 499.
The Metro-North WALK Bridge, mile 0.1, across the Norwalk River at Norwalk, CT, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 16 feet at mean high water and 23 feet at mean low water. The drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.217(b). The waterway users are seasonal recreational vessels and commercial vessels of various sizes. The owner of the bridge, Connecticut Department of Transportation (CDOT), requested a change to the Drawbridge Operation Regulations because the volume of train traffic across the bridge during the peak commuting hours makes bridge openings impractical under the current schedule. As a result, bridge openings that occur during peak commuter train hours cause significant delays to commuter rail traffic.
The Coast Guard believes these final changes balance the needs of rail and vessel traffic. The proposed changes enhance rail traffic without significantly impacting vessel traffic.
We received two submissions commenting on the SNPRM. One comment requested that any modification to the existing rule should not be extended past the initiation of construction of a new replacement bridge. The Coast Guard disagrees. A replacement bridge is only in the planning stage at CDOT. Design and construction of a replacement project for a bridge of this scale typically takes several years. As the timeline of a potential bridge replacement is uncertain, the Coast Guard cannot consider it within this rulemaking.
One comment suggested the Coast Guard consider revising the AM peak window to end at 8:45 a.m. and revising the PM peak window to begin at 4:15 p.m. and end at 8:20 p.m. to better accommodate commuters. The Coast Guard believes that the proposed rule offers greater consideration to peak commuter train traffic by restricting bridge openings until 9:45 a.m. The Coast Guard also believes that the PM peak revision of the proposed rule more adequately addresses the concerns in the comment by offering an additional 15 minutes on the front end by restricting bridge openings starting at 4 p.m. In addition, while the train schedules do adjust twice annually, only one train crosses the bridge between 8 p.m. and 8:20 p.m. Therefore, the Coast Guard believes ending the restriction to bridge openings at 8 p.m. is sufficient. The proposed changes balance the needs of rail and vessel traffic, enhancing rail traffic without significant adverse impact to vessel traffic.
The Coast Guard amends 33 CFR 117.217(b) as proposed in the SNPRM of April 4, 2016.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice. The vertical clearance under the bridge in the closed position is relatively high enough to accommodate most vessel traffic during the time periods the draw is closed during the morning and evening commuter rush hours.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(b) The draw of the Metro-North “WALK” Bridge, mile 0.1, at Norwalk, shall operate as follows:
(1) The draw shall open on signal between 4:30 a.m. and 9 p.m. after at least a two hour advance notice is given; except that, from 5:45 a.m. through 9:45 a.m. and from 4 p.m. through 8 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic unless an emergency exists.
(2) From 9 p.m. through 4:30 a.m. the draw shall open on signal after at least a four hour advance notice is given.
(3) A delay in opening the draw not to exceed 10 minutes may occur when a train scheduled to cross the bridge without stopping has entered the drawbridge lock.
(4) Requests for bridge openings may be made by calling the bridge via marine radio VHF FM Channel 13 or the telephone number posted at the bridge.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary interim final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary moving safety zone for navigable waters of the Hudson River within a 200-yard radius of the LEFT COAST LIFTER crane barge during heavy lift operations. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by heavy lift operations conducted by the crane barge in the vicinity of the Tappan Zee Bridge. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port.
This rule is effective without actual notice from July 12, 2016 through December 31, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from June 22, 2016 through July 12, 2016. Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 11, 2016.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0462 using the
If you have questions on this rule, call or email MST1 Kristina Pundt, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 718-354-4352, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM with respect to this rule because publishing a NPRM would be impracticable. A delay or cancellation of the currently ongoing bridge project in order to accommodate a full notice and comment period would delay necessary operations, result in increased costs, and delay the date when the bridge is expected to reopen for normal operations. For these reasons, the Coast Guard finds it impracticable to delay this regulation for purposes of a comment period.
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP has determined that the potential hazards associated with the LEFT COAST LIFTER's cable and anchor system create a serious safety concern for anyone transiting within a 200-yard radius of the LEFT COAST LIFTER during heavy lift operations. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while constructing the New NY Bridge and demolishing the existing Tappan Zee Bridge.
Construction on the Tappan Zee Bridge replacement project began on October 1, 2013. Heavy lift operations to install the new bridge superstructure over the Hudson River have presented new safety hazards and risks to vessels transiting the area due to the Left Coast Lifter's crane barge four-point anchor and cable system deployed while lifting heavy loads over the navigable waters of the Hudson River. The anchor and cable system extends outward from the crane barge, up to 200 yards, in four varying directions, at various heights above, and below, the water surface of the Hudson River. This presents a risk to mariners who may become entangled in the anchor cable system if they transit too close to the crane barge. We believe that a safety zone is needed to protect mariners during this period of construction.
This rule establishes a safety zone from June 22, 2016, through December 31, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Hudson River within 200 yards of the crane barge LEFT COAST LIFTER. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during heavy lift operations. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. The implementation of this temporary safety zone is necessary for the protection of all waterway users. The size of the zone is the minimum necessary to provide adequate protection for the waterway users, adjoining areas, and the public. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone. Any hardships experienced by persons or vessels are considered minimal compared to the interest in protecting the public.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by VHF-FM channel 16 or by phone at (718) 354-4353 (Sector New York Command Center). Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or a COTP designated representative.
(d)
National Park Service, Interior.
Final rule.
The National Park Service is establishing a management framework to allow the gathering and removal of plants or plant parts by enrolled members of federally recognized Indian tribes for traditional purposes. The rule authorizes agreements between the National Park Service and federally recognized tribes that will facilitate the continuation of tribal cultural practices on lands within areas of the National Park System where those practices traditionally occurred, without causing a significant adverse impact to park resources or values. This rule respects those tribal cultural practices, furthers the government-to-government relationship between the United States and the tribes, and provides system-wide consistency for this aspect of National Park Service-tribal relations.
This rule will be effective on August 11, 2016.
Joe Watkins, Office of Tribal Relations and American Cultures, National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-354-2126,
Gathering and removing plants or plant parts is currently prohibited in National Park System areas unless specifically authorized by federal statute
This rule authorizes the National Park Service (NPS) to enter into agreements with federally recognized Indian tribes to allow for the gathering and removal of plants or plant parts from National Park System areas for traditional purposes. Only enrolled members of a federally recognized tribe will be allowed to collect plants or plant parts, and the tribe must be traditionally associated with the specific park area. This traditional association must predate the establishment of the park. The plant gathering must meet a traditional purpose that is a customary activity and practice rooted in the history of the tribe and is important for the continuation of the tribe's distinct culture. Authorized plant gathering must be sustainable and may not result in a significant adverse impact on park resources or values. The sale and commercial use of plants or plant parts within areas of the National Park System will continue to be prohibited by NPS regulations at 36 CFR 2.1(c)(3)(v).
This rule does not affect any existing statutory or treaty right to gather plants within areas of the National Park System.
Before gathering may occur within a park area, an Indian tribe must submit a written request to the park Superintendent for an agreement to allow tribal members to collect plants or plant parts. After a request is made, the Superintendent has 90 days to acknowledge receipt of the request and initiate consultation with the tribe. If the Superintendent does not initiate consultation within 90 days, then the tribe may submit the request to the Regional Director. If all of the criteria for entering into an agreement are met, the Superintendent will begin negotiations with the tribe for a gathering agreement in consultation with any other tribe that has gathering rights under treaty or federal statute or is party to a valid plant-gathering agreement with the NPS for that area. The NPS must prepare an environmental assessment meeting the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). If the proposed gathering would have a significant adverse impact on the environment, then the NPS will not authorize it. The NPS must prepare a finding of no significant impact before any plant gathering agreement may become effective. All plant-gathering agreements must contain the specific elements set forth in the rule and must receive the concurrence of the Regional Director, and all plant-gathering activities must be conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions of a special use permit issued by the Superintendent. The activities allowed by the permit must fall within the scope of activities agreed upon in the gathering agreement and analyzed in the environmental assessment.
The NPS will provide guidance to the park areas and participating tribes about how to implement this rule. Model agreements, templates, and other documents may be a part of the guidance, including suggestions for baseline documentation and monitoring protocols for gathering activities in each park area.
The NPS has a unique relationship with Indian tribes, which is strengthened by a shared commitment to stewardship of the land and resources. This relationship is augmented by the historical, cultural, and spiritual relationships that Indian tribes have with the park lands and resources with which they are traditionally associated.
Indian tribes practiced their traditional harvests of plants and plant parts on or from lands that are now included in areas of the National Park System long before the arrival of European settlers. Much of this activity is currently prohibited by NPS regulations in 36 CFR part 2. The fundamental purpose of this rule is to relax this prohibition in limited circumstances to allow traditional gathering and removal of plants or plant parts while ensuring that there is no significant adverse impact to park resources and values.
Cooperation in the continuation of tribal traditions is at the heart of this rule. The NPS has a long history of encouraging Indian arts and crafts in national parks for the education and enjoyment of the public, and to support the continued practice of cultural traditions. The teaching and sharing of tribal traditions associated with national parks is an important part of the NPS mission. The rule provides new opportunities for the NPS and tribal governments to work together in support of the continuation of sustainable Indian cultural traditions that make up a unique and irreplaceable part of our national heritage.
The NPS has allowed limited gathering by hand of certain renewable natural resources since at least 1960.
Existing NPS regulations at 36 CFR 2.1(d) do not allow tribal members to gather plants or plant parts in park areas for ceremonial or religious purposes, except where federal statutes or treaties grant rights to do so. Traditional tribal gathering and removal, however, occurred in many areas that are now part of the National Park System, and not all of these activities are authorized by treaty or federal statute. This rule provides an orderly and consistent process to allow limited gathering and removal of plants or plant parts for traditional purposes under agreements between the NPS and federally recognized Indian tribes.
Over the past 20 years, studies in ethnobotany and traditional plant management, along with consideration of traditional ecological knowledge in scientific symposia and scholarly gatherings, have increased greatly. Research findings have shown that traditional conservation of plant species includes gathering and management techniques as well as social and cultural rules for avoiding over-exploitation (Berkes 2012; Blackburn and Anderson 1993; Anderson 2005; Deur and Turner 2005). Traditional gathering is carried out in ways that ensure plant replacement and abundance by using specific harvest criteria and foraging and cultivation strategies (Anderson 1993; Turner and Peacock 2005). The example of Pomo basketry and the husbandry and gathering of sedge plants to ensure continuing quality and quantity of basketry supplies is well known (Peri and Patterson 1976), and other wild plant species necessary for basket making such as willow and fern are managed similarly through harvesting, burning, and cultivation techniques (Ortiz 1993). Wild plant species used for food have been managed for thousands of years by native groups using specific gathering techniques to maximize both harvest
Research has shown that traditional gathering, when done with traditional methods (
This rule is consistent with NPS Management Policies 2006 (Management Policies) 4.2.1, the agency's top-tier written policy guidance, which directs the NPS to inventory, monitor, and research traditional knowledge and authorizes the NPS to support studies designed to understand the traditional resource management practices of Native Americans. The NPS Cultural Anthropology Program has engaged in research on traditional ecological knowledge and indigenous resource management for over 20 years. A recent example is centered on Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in Michigan, where tribal members of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians helped to document the presence of culturally significant Odawa plant species and the specifics of cultural use (Stoffle et al. 2015). The NPS and tribal governments can draw on this research and may conduct further research to ensure that traditional tribal gathering and removal does not have a significant adverse impact on park resources or values. To the extent that it is appropriate and does not compromise tribal traditional knowledge, park visitors may also learn about the cultures associated with traditional tribal gathering practices.
This rule requires that the NPS comply with all applicable federal laws, including NEPA, before entering enter into an agreement that will allow gathering and removal of plants or plant parts in a National Park System area. These environmental reviews will document how the proposed traditional gathering activities may affect particular species of plants in ecosystems and locations within a park area.
What is commonly known as the NPS Organic Act, as amended and supplemented, established what is now the NPS and directed the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the NPS, to “promote and regulate the use of the National Park System by means and measures that conform to the fundamental purpose of the System units, which purpose is to conserve the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wild life in the System units and to provide for the enjoyment of the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wild life in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” 54 U.S.C. 100101(a). The NPS Organic Act further authorizes the Secretary to prescribe “such regulations as the Secretary considers necessary or proper for the use and management of [National Park] System units.” 54 U.S.C. 100751(a).
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951); Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” of November 6, 2000; President Obama's Executive Memorandum on Tribal Consultation of November 5, 2009; Department of the Interior Secretarial Order No. 3317 of December 1, 2011, and Department of the Interior Departmental Manual Part 512, “American Indian and Alaska Native Programs;” the NPS has evaluated the potential effects of this rule on federally recognized Indian tribes and has determined that it has direct tribal implications.
The NPS held six tribal consultation meetings in the “Lower 48” regarding this rule. NPS regional and park staff consulted with Indian tribes to select meeting locations in or near areas of the National Park System where gathering by tribal members has been discussed. One hundred and fifty representatives from 50 tribes attended meetings held from May through July 2010, in Bar Harbor, Maine; Flagstaff, Arizona; Pipestone, Minnesota; Yurok, California; Suquamish, Washington; and Cherokee, North Carolina. An additional meeting was held at Pipestone, Minnesota, in September 2010. Staff in Alaska contacted more than 70 federally recognized Indian tribes traditionally associated with parks in Alaska. Consultation then occurred with those tribes that requested it. Additionally, general presentations were given at two statewide conventions: The Alaska Tribal Leaders Summit in Fairbanks during the annual meetings of the Alaska Federation of Natives in October 2010 and the annual Bureau of Indian Affairs Providers Conference in Anchorage in December 2010. A conference call with traditional elders and tribal people not representing tribal governments was conducted in June 2010 at the request of Arvol Looking Horse, Keeper of the Sacred White Buffalo Calf Pipe of the Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota Nation of the Sioux. Park managers and staff attended these consultation meetings and participated in the discussions. The major concerns of representatives of tribal governments and the NPS are summarized and addressed here.
Tribal representatives supported the concept that only enrolled members of federally recognized Indian tribes be allowed to gather and remove park resources for traditional purposes. This rule limits gathering and removal of plants or plant parts to members of an Indian tribe or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe under the Federally Recognized Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a. This requirement limits gathering and removal to members of Indian tribes with which the United States has a government-to-government relationship. Other groups that may be traditionally associated with park areas, including non-federally recognized tribes and Native Hawaiian groups, do not have the same legal and political relationship with the United States and therefore this rule does not extend to such groups. If a group later becomes federally recognized, the rule would then extend to it. The rule provides avenues for cooperative NPS-tribal government oversight of member activities on park lands to ensure that traditional gathering and removal remains sustainable with no significant adverse impacts to park resources or values, consistent with Management Policies 8.2.
A central purpose of the rule is to support the continuation of Indian cultural traditions on lands that are now administered as areas of the National Park System. The rule allows gathering only by members of Indian tribes traditionally associated with specific park areas. Respecting the special and longstanding connections that Indian tribes have with parklands prior to the establishment of park areas is specifically acknowledged in Management Policies 1.11, which states that the “formal legal rationale for the relationship between the NPS and tribes is augmented by the historical, cultural, and spiritual relationships that American Indian tribes have with park lands and resources.” The NPS believes there are approximately 433 federally-recognized tribes that may be traditionally associated with locations within approximately 215 areas of the National Park System. The NPS does not know, and has no way to estimate, how many of those tribes will be interested in entering into gathering agreements under this rule.
The NPS and tribal representatives supported agreements between tribal governments and the NPS to establish the conditions for gathering in park areas. These agreements will respect both tribal sovereignty and the NPS's authority to manage park resources and will authorize traditional tribal gathering in ways that may be administered flexibly to respond to local resource concerns. The participating tribal government will be responsible for designating which tribal members may gather in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the agreement and the subsequently issued special use permit.
Tribal representatives expressed deep concern for the long-term health of park ecosystems. Reminding the NPS of their long history of productive and protective relationships with such ecosystems, they expressed willingness to accept limitations on gathering to protect park resources. Although not required by this rule, NPS and tribal representatives may use this opportunity to develop park-specific plant gathering management plans to ensure the long-term health of any park resource that may be gathered. These plans would be in addition to the environmental review documents that are required by this rule and NEPA.
Tribal representatives stressed that each Indian tribe is unique and that tribal agreements entered into under the rule should allow for traditional cultural practices specific to each tribe.
Tribal representatives expressed that some national park areas contain places where tribal members historically have gathered plant resources. Using a particular gathering site within a national park area may be vital to the continuation of a cultural tradition that cannot be met at locations outside the park, or even at alternative locations within it. Thus, even though some plants or plant parts may be available outside park lands, tribal members may still reasonably desire to gather at traditionally significant locations inside a park area. The rationale for in-park gathering of plants or plant parts that are also available outside park boundaries must be documented on a case-by-case basis under § 2.6(d) of the rule. The information used to make this determination may be subjected to peer review by qualified specialists from both the tribal and academic communities.
Tribal representatives expressed the desire to work with the NPS to create and maintain the knowledge base needed to manage gathering and removal and to leave park resources unimpaired for future generations. This may include joint research and monitoring, training programs for tribal members and park staff, and ongoing consultation regarding park resources.
Existing NPS regulations, promulgated in 1983, prohibit “possessing, destroying, injuring, defacing, removing, digging, or disturbing from its natural state” living or dead wildlife or fish, plants, paleontological specimens, or mineral resources, or the parts or products of any of these items, except as otherwise provided in NPS regulations. 36 CFR 2.1. The new rule, to be codified at 36 CFR 2.6, creates an exception to current regulations by authorizing resource- and location-specific agreements between the NPS and federally recognized Indian tribes to gather and remove plants or plant parts for traditional purposes.
Plants or plant parts gathered under this rule may not be used for “benefits sharing,” which allows for the commercial use of research results derived from material collected in a park area through the specimen collection permit procedures in 36 CFR 2.5.
This rule does not affect 36 CFR 2.1(c)(1), which allows a park Superintendent to designate certain fruits, berries, nuts, or unoccupied seashells that may be gathered by hand for personal use and consumption, subject to a determination that the gathering or consumption will not adversely affect park wildlife, the reproductive potential of a plant species, or otherwise adversely affect park resources.
This rule amends § 2.1(d), which now states that “[t]his section [36 CFR 2.1] shall not be construed as authorizing the taking, use or possession of fish, wildlife, or plants for ceremonial or religious purposes, except where specifically authorized by federal statutory law, treaty rights or in accordance with § 2.2 [wildlife protection] or § 2.3 [fishing].” This rule authorizes the gathering and removal of plants or plant parts for traditional purposes under NPS-tribal agreements but does not alter the prohibition on taking, using, or possessing fish or wildlife for such purposes.
In many of the National Park System units in Alaska, 36 CFR 13.35 regulates the gathering and collection of natural products and allows for the limited gathering of a wider range of natural products than are included in this rule. Except for the four park areas
On April 20, 2015, the NPS published the proposed rule in the
The NPS received 90 pieces of correspondence with comments on the proposed rule: 37 from federally recognized tribes, 40 from private citizens, 10 from non-profit organizations, and three from state governments. In general, the comments fell into the following categories:
A summary of comments and NPS responses is provided below followed by a table that lists changes the NPS has made in the final rule based on comment analysis and other considerations.
For example, as mentioned above, the NPS has allowed the limited gathering by hand of certain renewable natural resources in park areas for personal use or consumption since at least 1960,
The fact that Congress has in certain instances explicitly directed the Secretary to allow the gathering or consumption of park resources by members of American Indian tribes
This rule is also consistent with written guidance interpreting the NPS Organic Act that is contained in the Management Policies, the agency's top-tier written policy guidance. As discussed above, the NPS has long understood that the mandate in the
In addition to impairment, the policies discuss the related concepts of “unacceptable impacts” to park resources or values and “appropriate use” of park areas. Unacceptable impacts “are impacts that fall short of impairment, but are still not acceptable within a particular park's environment,” Management Policies 1.4.7.1, and an appropriate use of a park area is one that is “suitable, proper, or fitting for a particular park, or to a particular location within a park.” Management Policies 1.5. Under the policies the NPS manager must determine which uses are appropriate in a particular location within the particular park area and may not allow unacceptable impacts to park resources or values.
If the traditional gathering and removal of certain plants or plant parts for traditional purposes by enrolled members of federally recognized Indian tribes that are traditionally associated with the park area is authorized and conducted in accordance with this rule, then the NPS believes that it is a suitable, proper, and fitting—and therefore appropriate—use of park resources. The rule defines “traditional association” as “a longstanding relationship of historical or cultural significance between an Indian tribe and a park area predating the establishment of the park area” and a “traditional purpose” as “a customary activity or practice that is rooted in the history of an Indian tribe and is important to the continuation of that tribe's distinct culture.” Under the rule a tribe that wishes to gather and remove plants or plant parts from a park area must provide certain information to the NPS about its traditional association with the park area, and the NPS must determine, based on all available information, that the tribe is in fact traditionally associated with the park area and is proposing to gather and remove plants or plant parts within the park area for a traditional purpose.
Helping tribes maintain traditional cultural practices through access to plants or plant parts in park areas where the tribe has a traditional association helps fulfill one of the purposes of the National Park System, as described in Management Policies 1.11:
As the ancestral homelands of many American Indian tribes, parks protect resources, sites, and vistas that are highly significant for the tribes. Therefore, the Service will pursue an open, collaborative relationship with American Indian tribes to help tribes maintain their cultural and spiritual practices and enhance the Park Service's understanding of the history and significance of sites and resources in the parks. Within the constraints of legal authority and its duty to protect park resources, the Service will work with tribal governments to provide access to park resources and places that are essential for the continuation of traditional American Indian cultural or religious practices.
The tribal gathering of plants or plant parts authorized by this rule is also consistent with Management Policies 8.9, which states that the NPS “generally supports the limited and controlled consumption of natural resources for traditional religious and ceremonial purposes and is moving toward a goal of greater access and accommodation.”
The NPS also believes that the elements of this rule, and the requirements embedded in them, will ensure that any gathering and removal activities authorized by the rule will not result in unacceptable impacts to, or impairment of, park resources or values. Requests for gathering activities that would result in unacceptable impacts or impairment will be denied. The safeguarding elements of the rule include:
The required agreement between the NPS and the tribe must include the elements listed in § 2.6(f) of the rule. These elements include:
• A description of the specific plants or plant parts that may be gathered and removed.
• Specification of the size and quantity of the plants or plant parts that may be gathered and removed.
• Identification of the times and locations at which the plants or plant parts may be gathered and removed.
• Identification of the methods that may be used for gathering and removal, which will be limited to gathering by hand without power tools.
• Protocols for monitoring gathering and removal activities and thresholds above which NPS and tribal management intervention will occur.
These contractual provisions will enable the NPS to monitor the severity, duration, and timing of any impacts from the gathering activities to prevent unacceptable impacts to, or impairment of, park resources or values.
In addition to the terms of the gathering agreement, gathering activities will be subject to the terms and conditions of a special use permit issued by the NPS to the tribe that will further ensure that gathering and removal of plants or plant parts do not cause unacceptable impacts to, or impair, park resources or values. The permit requirement will enable the NPS to modify the terms and conditions
This rule also requires the NPS to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed gathering and removal activities in accordance with the requirements of NEPA (by preparing an environmental assessment and a finding of no significant impact), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and other applicable laws. The NPS may allow gathering and removal activities only if, during that compliance process, it determines that the proposed activities will not result in a significant adverse impact on park resources or values.
Some comments suggested that that if Congress intended 54 U.S.C. 100101 to give the NPS discretion to allow plant gathering, it would have been unnecessary for Congress to grant the Secretary of the Interior specific authority in 54 U.S.C. 100752 “to provide for the destruction of such . . . plant life as may be detrimental to the use of any System unit.” The NPS believes that the latter statute is not relevant to this rule because by its own terms it concerns and authorizes management actions by the NPS or its agents or contractors; it does not apply to the consumptive use of park resources by members of the public. Rather, this rule falls under the broad discretionary authority granted to the NPS by 54 U.S.C. 100101(a) and 54 U.S.C. 100751(a). Moreover, 54 U.S.C. 100752 authorizes management actions directed at plants that the NPS has determined are “detrimental” to the use of a particular park area. Those management actions are often intended to eradicate plant species that are exotic or otherwise inimical to a park area. The tribal gathering authorized by this rule is not directed at “detrimental” plants. In any event, because of the requirements and safeguards built into this rule, the tribal gathering authorized by it will never result in the destruction or eradication of any plant species in a park area.
Finally, some comments stated that the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Farm Bill) suggests that Congress must grant the NPS specific statutory authority to allow tribes to gather plants in NPS areas. The Farm Bill authorizes the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to provide trees, portions of trees, or forest products from lands administered by the USFS to Indian tribes free of charge for noncommercial traditional and cultural purposes (25 U.S.C. 3055). As explained above, the NPS believes that the NPS Organic Act already grants it the discretionary authority to allow the limited consumptive use of plants or plant parts authorized by this rule.
In the proposed rule the NPS requested comment about how the NPS and the USFS can coordinate their separate processes for requesting approval to remove natural products from their adjacent lands. Some comments encouraged the NPS to adopt the USFS rule rather than create a rule specific to NPS areas. This the NPS may not do. The NPS and the USFS operate under significantly different statutory regimes. As a result, the gathering and removal of plants or plant parts from NPS lands must be governed by regulations and policies different from the regulations and policies that will govern the removal of trees, portions of trees, or forest products from adjacent USFS lands. Therefore, it is not possible for the NPS to simply adopt the USFS rule. Although the NPS will encourage its park managers to coordinate informally with the managers of nearby USFS lands to eliminate duplicative requests for information and to more efficiently accommodate tribal requests and concerns, Indian tribes must negotiate a gathering agreement with the NPS in addition to any requirements imposed by the USFS on its adjacent lands.
The only action occurring at this time is the publication of the rule. The only immediate result of this action will be that Indian tribes may submit to the NPS requests to enter into agreements. The specifics of those agreements and any implementing permits are not known at the time of adoption of the rule. The effects of these future potential actions cannot be analyzed now because they are too broad, speculative, and conjectural to be meaningfully evaluated. They can be evaluated only at the time of the negotiation of a gathering agreement between the NPS and the tribe.
The rule requires that before entering into a gathering agreement with an Indian tribe, the NPS must analyze potential impacts of the proposed gathering and removal under all applicable federal laws, including NEPA, and that the NEPA compliance process must conclude with a finding of no significant impact. All proposed gathering activities in particular park areas or locations will therefore be subjected to analysis through the NEPA compliance process, after the NPS has received enough information about those activities (
The NPS has reviewed the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 and has confirmed that none apply to this action.
Superintendents will use all relevant forms of evidence made available to them to make a decision on traditional association, including oral history and evidence from the Indian Claims Commission.
The selection of a specific type of agreement depends upon what is agreed upon between the NPS and the tribe. For example, depending on the details of the arrangement, the NPS may use a memorandum of understanding, a memorandum of agreement, or a general agreement to document its relationship and agreement with the tribe. The type of agreement for plant gathering is best left to the consultation and negotiation process rather than specified in the rule.
If the NPS determines that it is not sustainable to allow gathering under an agreement provided for in this rule and under a treaty, the rights to gather under treaty will take precedence over gathering under an agreement. It is possible that limits will need to be placed on gathering a particular plant species under an agreement to ensure that the activity is conducted in a sustainable manner. If the environmental analysis conducted prior to finalizing an agreement indicates that limits need to be stipulated, these limits will be included in the gathering agreement. If subsequent monitoring indicates an adverse impact to the species warranting additional limits, then the agreement can be amended to include those limits, or the additional limits can be placed in the permits issued for gathering activities. The rule also gives the Superintendent the authority to close park areas, or portions thereof, to gathering and removing plant species that are subject to gathering under an agreement and permit, in order to protect natural resources.
After taking the public comments into consideration and after additional review, the NPS made the following substantive changes in the final rule:
The rule modifies the existing prohibition in this section on the taking, use, or possession of plants for ceremonial or religious purposes, by adding an exception for the gathering and removal of plants or plant parts by members of a federally-recognized Indian tribe in accordance with the requirements of this rule. The rule does not nullify or abrogate any existing statutory or treaty rights, nor does it affect rules governing the taking of fish or wildlife.
This section defines the following terms that are used in the rule: Indian tribe, Plants or plant parts, Traditional association, Traditional purpose, Traditional gathering, and Tribal official. The NPS added a definition to the final rule that defines “plants or plant parts” as vascular plants or parts of vascular plants. No other types of plants may be gathered or removed under this rule. The NPS added this definition to clarify that non-vascular plants such as bryophytes (
This section provides a summary of the process for authorizing a tribe to gather and remove plants or plant parts in a park area. The rule authorizes agreements to allow and manage tribal gathering and removal of plants or plant parts for traditional purposes in park areas. The agreements will explicitly recognize the special government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the United States, and will be based upon mutually agreed upon terms and conditions subject to the requirements of § 2.6(d). The agreements will serve as the framework under which the NPS will allow tribal gathering and removal and will be implemented by an accompanying permit issued by the NPS under § 1.6, which will authorize the gathering and removal activities.
This section explains how a tribe must request a gathering agreement from the NPS. The Superintendent will respond within ninety (90) days to a properly submitted request from the appropriate tribal official expressing interest in entering into an agreement for gathering and removal based on tribal traditional association with the park area, and on the continuation of traditional tribal cultural practices on park land. The tribal request must include a description of the traditional association that the Indian tribe has to the park area, a brief explanation of the traditional purposes to which the gathering and removal activities will relate, and a description of the gathering and removal activities that the Indian tribe is interested in conducting.
This section identifies criteria that must be met before the NPS will enter into a gathering agreement with a tribe. The rule requires the Superintendent to determine that the Indian tribe has a traditional association with the park area; determine that the Indian tribe is proposing to gather and remove plants or plant parts in the park area for a traditional purpose; analyze potential impacts of the proposed gathering activities under NEPA, NHPA, ESA, and other applicable laws; determine that the proposed gathering and removal activities will not result in a significant adverse impact on park resources or values; and determine that the agreement for the proposed gathering and removal meets the requirements for issuing a permit under 36 CFR 1.6(a).
This section explains that the Superintendent must deny a request from a tribe to enter into a gathering
This section explains that gathering agreements, at a minimum, must require that the tribal government identify who within the tribe is designated to gather and remove; how such individuals will be identified; what plants or plant parts may be gathered and removed; and limits on size, quantities, seasons, or locations where the gathering and removal may take place.
Agreements will also establish NPS-tribal protocols for monitoring park resources subject to gathering and removal operating protocols, and remedies for noncompliance in addition to those set out in the rule. In the case of noncompliance by members of the tribe, the NPS will initially apply these agreed-upon remedies and, if warranted, seek prosecution of specific violators, prior to terminating the agreement. This section also provides for any special conditions unique to the park area or tribal tradition that may be included within the scope of existing law. The NPS will authorize the tribe to manage gathering and removal by tribal members, subject to the conditions of the agreement. Gathering agreements will be implemented through a permit issued by the park for the authorized gatherers under 36 CFR 1.6.
This section requires the Regional Director to approve any agreement entered into under the rule.
This section explains the Superintendent's authority to close park areas to gathering and removal, notwithstanding the terms of any agreement or permit executed under this rule. The Superintendent may close a park area to gathering and removal when necessary to maintain public health and safety, protect environmental or scenic values, protect park resources, aid scientific research, implement management responsibilities, equitably allocate the use of facilities, or avoid conflict among visitor use activities. Those criteria are drawn verbatim from the existing NPS regulation authorizing closures generally, 36 CFR 1.5(a). Under that regulation, the Superintendent may close all or a portion of a park area to all public use or to a specific activity or use for one of the enumerated reasons. It is important to note that an order closing a park area to gathering and removal does not suspend, rescind, or otherwise affect the underlying tribal gathering agreement, which remains in effect. Except for emergencies, the Superintendent will provide appropriate public notice of any closures in accordance with 36 CFR 1.7. The Superintendent will also provide written notice of the closure directly to any tribe that has an agreement to gather and remove plants or plant parts from the close area.
This section explains when an agreement or permit may be suspended or terminated by the NPS. The rule allows the NPS to suspend or terminate an agreement or permit where terms or conditions are violated or unanticipated or significant adverse impacts occur. The Superintendent must prepare a written determination justifying the action. A termination is subject to the concurrence of the Regional Director. Termination of an agreement or permit will be based on factors such as careful analysis of impacts on park resources and the effectiveness of NPS-tribal agreement administration. The NPS also may address violations of a permit under 36 CFR 1.6(g).
Gathering and removal of plants or plant parts remains prohibited, except as authorized under this rule (including the terms and conditions of an agreement and permit issued under this rule), or as otherwise authorized by federal statute, treaty, or another NPS regulation.
This section explains that tribes have the right to appeal a decision made by the Superintendent to deny a request for an agreement. Decisions on appeal will be made by the Regional Director pursuant to the procedures in this rule.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 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.
This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the SBREFA. 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 determination is based on information from “Cost-Benefit and Regulatory Flexibility Analyses” available for review at
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. It addresses use of NPS lands only. A statement containing the information required by the UMRA (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 Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. This rule only affects use of NPS-administered lands. It has no outside effects on other areas. 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 identified direct tribal implications. We have consulted with tribes on a government-to-government basis as explained above in this rule.
This rule contains a collection of information that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
An Indian tribe that has a traditional association with a park area may request that we enter into an agreement with the tribe for gathering and removal from the park area of plants or plant parts for traditional purposes. The agreement will define the terms under which the Indian tribe may be issued permits that will designate the tribal members who may gather and remove plants or plant parts within the park area in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and the permit.
(1) The initial request from an Indian tribe that we enter into an agreement with the tribe for gathering and removal of plants or plant parts for traditional purposes. The request must include the information specified in § 2.6(c).
(2) The agreement, which defines the terms under which the Indian tribe may be issued a permit. To make determinations based upon tribal requests or to enter into an agreement, we may need to collect information from those Indian tribes who make requests and from the specific tribal members. The agreement must contain the information specified in § 2.6(f).
During the final rule stage, we made one change in our information collection requirements. We added a new section on the appeals process, outlining the right of tribes to appeal decisions made by the Superintendent to the Regional Director. Appeals should set forth the substantive factual or legal bases for the tribe's disagreement with the Superintendent's decision and any other information the tribe wishes the Regional Director to consider. During the proposed rule stage, we solicited comments on the information collection requirements. We addressed all comments in the preamble above. A number of comments addressed the issue of the information requested under this rule. These comments fell within three broad categories:
(1)
(2)
(3)
We did not change our information collection requirements based on these comments. The public may comment at any time on the accuracy of the information collection burden in this rule. You may send comments on any aspect of these information collection requirements to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive (Mail Stop 242), Reston, VA 20192.
This rule does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under NEPA is not required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion. The Department of the Interior Regulations for implementing NEPA at 43 CFR 46.210(i) and the NPS NEPA Handbook at ¶ 3.2(H) allow for the following to be categorically excluded: “policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature; or whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA-compliance process, either collectively or case-by-case.”
The NPS has determined that the environmental effects of this rule are too broad, speculative, or conjectural for a meaningful analysis. In order to enter into an agreement for gathering of natural products under the rule, the NPS will first need to receive a request from an appropriate tribal official. While there are a number of Indian tribes that may qualify for an agreement under the rule, the NPS can only speculate at this point as to which Indian tribes will request an agreement, which park areas will be affected, and what specific resources specific Indian tribes will request to collect. Because of this, the NPS has explicitly required that it prepare an environmental assessment and a finding of no significant impact that meets the requirements of NEPA for each gathering agreement, on a case-by-case basis. The activities allowed by the permit must fall within the scope of activities agreed upon in the gathering agreement. As a result, no collection of plants or plant parts will occur under this rule until after a site-specific NEPA analysis is completed.
The NPS has 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 Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
The primary authors of the proposed rule were Patricia L. Parker, Ph.D., Chief, American Indian Liaison Office; Frederick F. York, Ph.D., Regional Anthropologist, Pacific West Region; and Philip Selleck, Associate Regional Director for Operations, National Capital Region. The primary authors of the final rule were Joe Watkins, Ph.D., Chief, American Indian Liaison Office; Michael J. Evans, Ph.D., Chief, Cultural Anthropology/Ethnography, Midwest Region; Timothy Cochrane, Ph.D., Superintendent, Grand Portage National Monument; and Dr. Meredith Hardy, Archeologist, Southeast Archeological Center.
National parks, Native Americans, Natural resources.
For the reasons given in the preamble, the National Park Service amends 36 CFR part 2 as follows:
54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102.
(d) This section shall not be construed as authorizing the taking, use, or possession of fish, wildlife, or plants for ceremonial or religious purposes, except for the gathering and removal of plants or plant parts by enrolled members of an Indian tribe in accordance with § 2.6, or where specifically authorized by federal statutory law, treaty, or in accordance with § 2.2 or § 2.3.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i) A description of the Indian tribe's traditional association to the park area;
(ii) A description of the traditional purposes to which the traditional gathering activities will relate; and
(iii) A description of the traditional gathering and removal activities that the tribe is interested in conducting, including a list of the plants or plant parts that tribal members wish to gather and the methods by which those plants or plant parts will be gathered.
(2) Within 90 days after receiving a request that contains the information required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the Superintendent will initiate consultation with the requesting tribe in order to develop an agreement. If a Superintendent fails to initiate consultation within 90 days after receiving such a request, then the tribe may submit the request to the Regional Director. The Superintendent will also consult with any other tribe that has gathering rights in that park area under a treaty or federal statute or is party to a valid plant-gathering agreement with the NPS for that park area.
(d)
(1) Determine, based on available information, including information provided by the tribe itself, that the tribe has a traditional association with the park area and is proposing to gather and remove plants or plant parts within the park area for a traditional purpose; and
(2) Comply with all applicable federal laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act. The compliance for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 must consist of an environmental assessment and must conclude with a finding of no significant impact, which must also document the determinations required by paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The Superintendent may not enter into an agreement that will have a significant adverse impact on park area resources or values.
(e)
(f)
(i) The name of the Indian tribe authorized to gather and remove plants and plant parts;
(ii) The basis for the tribe's eligibility under paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section to enter into the agreement;
(iii) A description of the system to be used to administer traditional gathering and removal, including a clear means of identifying the enrolled tribal members who, under the permit, are designated by the Indian tribe to gather and remove;
(iv) A means for the tribal government to keep the NPS regularly informed of which enrolled tribal members are designated by the tribe to gather and remove;
(v) A description of the specific plants or plant parts that may be gathered and removed. The gathering agreement may not authorize the gathering of any species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act;
(vi) Specification of the size and quantity of the plants or plant parts that may be gathered and removed;
(vii) Identification of the times and locations at which the plants or plant parts may be gathered and removed;
(viii) A statement that plants or plant parts may be gathered only by traditional gathering methods,
(ix) A statement that the sale or commercial use of natural products (including plants or plant parts gathered under the agreement) is prohibited in the park area under § 2.1(c)(3)(v);
(x) Protocols for monitoring traditional gathering and removal activities and thresholds above which NPS and tribal management intervention will occur;
(xi) A requirement that the NPS and the tribe engage in periodic reviews of the status of traditional gathering activities under the agreement through consultation;
(xii) Operating protocols and additional remedies for non-compliance with the terms of the agreement beyond those provided in this section, including mitigation, restoration, and remediation;
(xiii) A requirement that a permit issued under the agreement identify the tribal members who are designated by the tribe to gather plants or plant parts under the permit;
(xiv) A list of key officials; and
(xv) Any additional terms or conditions that the parties may agree upon.
(2) Agreements will be implemented through a permit issued in accordance with § 1.6 of this chapter. Activities allowed by a permit must fall within the scope of activities agreed upon in the agreement.
(g)
(h)
(i) Maintenance of public health and safety;
(ii) Protection of environmental or scenic values;
(iii) Protection of natural or cultural resources;
(iv) Aid to scientific research;
(v) Implementation of management plans; or
(vi) Avoidance of conflict among visitor use activities.
(2) Closed areas may not be reopened to traditional gathering and removal until the reasons for the closure have been resolved.
(3) Except in emergency situations, the Superintendent will provide public notice of any closure under this section in accordance with § 1.7 of this chapter. The Superintendent will also provide written notice of the closure directly to any tribe that has an agreement to gather and remove plants or plant parts from the closed area.
(i)
(1) The Superintendent may suspend or terminate a gathering agreement or implementing permit if the tribe or a tribal member violates any term or condition of the agreement or the permit.
(2) The Superintendent may suspend or terminate a gathering agreement or implementing permit if unanticipated or significant adverse impacts to park area resources or values occur.
(3) If a Superintendent suspends or terminates a gathering agreement or implementing permit, then the Superintendent must prepare a written determination justifying the action and must provide a copy of the determination to the tribe.
(4) Before terminating a gathering agreement or implementing permit, the Superintendent must obtain the written concurrence of the Regional Director.
(j)
(1) Federal statutory law;
(2) Treaty rights;
(3) Other regulations of this chapter; or
(4) An agreement and permit issued under this section.
(k)
(l)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This rule establishes the initial air quality designations for certain areas in the United States (U.S.) for the 2010 primary sulfur dioxide (SO
The effective date of this rule is September 12, 2016.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID NO. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464. All documents in the docket are listed in the
In addition, the EPA has established a Web site for the initial SO
For general questions concerning this action, please contact Rhea Jones, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, C539-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-2940, email at
The public may inspect the rule and state-specific technical support information at the following locations:
The following is an outline of the Preamble.
The following are abbreviations of terms used in the preamble.
The purpose of this final action is to announce and promulgate initial air quality designations for certain areas in the U.S. for the 2010 primary SO
In this second round of SO
The Administrator signed a final rule revising the primary SO
Current scientific evidence links short-term exposures to SO
The EPA's NAAQS for SO
Emissions that lead to high concentrations of SO
After the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required to designate all areas of the country as either “nonattainment,” “attainment,”
The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d) of the CAA. The CAA requires the EPA to complete the initial designations process within 2 years of promulgating a new or revised standard. If the Administrator has insufficient information to make these designations by that deadline, the EPA has the authority to extend the deadline for completing designations by up to 1 year. On July 27, 2012, the EPA announced that it had insufficient information to complete the designations for the 1-hour SO
By no later than 1 year after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section 107(d)(1)(A) provides that each state governor is required to recommend air quality
The EPA notes that CAA section 107(d) provides the agency with discretion to determine how best to interpret the terms in the definition of a nonattainment area (
Similarly, the EPA's position is that the statute permits the EPA to evaluate the appropriate application of the term “area” to include geographic areas based upon full or partial county boundaries, as may be appropriate for a particular NAAQS. For example, CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii) explicitly provides that the EPA can make modifications to designation recommendations for an area “or portions thereof,” and under CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(iv) a designation remains in effect for an area “or portion thereof” until the EPA redesignates it.
For the 2010 SO
Although not required by section 107(d) of the CAA, the EPA also provided an opportunity for members of the public to comment on the EPA's February 2013 response letters. The EPA completed the first round of SO
Following the initial August 5, 2013, designations, three lawsuits were filed against the EPA in different U.S. District Courts, alleging the agency had failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty under the CAA by not designating all portions of the country by the June 2, 2013, deadline. In an effort intended to resolve the litigation in one of those cases, the EPA and the plaintiffs, Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, filed a proposed consent decree with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On March 2, 2015, the court entered the consent decree and issued an enforceable order for the EPA to complete the area designations by three specific deadlines according to the court-ordered schedule.
According to the court-ordered schedule, the EPA must complete this second round of SO
The last two court-ordered deadlines for completing remaining designations are December 31, 2017 (Round 3), and December 31, 2020 (Round 4). In Round 3, the EPA must designate any remaining undesignated areas, for which, by January 1, 2017, states have not installed and begun operating a new SO
On March 20, 2015, the EPA sent letters to Governors notifying them of the March 2, 2015, court order and identifying any sources in their states meeting the criteria for the round of
On or about February 16, 2016, the EPA notified 24 affected states of its intended designation of certain specific areas as either nonattainment, unclassifiable/attainment, or unclassifiable for the SO
In the notice of proposed rulemaking for the revised SO
In the March 24, 2011, guidance, the EPA stated that the perimeter of a county containing a violating monitor would be the initial presumptive boundary for nonattainment areas, but also stated that the state, tribe and/or the EPA could conduct additional area-specific analyses that could justify establishing either a larger or smaller area. The EPA indicated that the following factors should be considered in an analysis of whether to exclude portions of a county and whether to include additional nearby areas outside the county as part of the designated nonattainment area: (1) Air quality data; (2) emissions-related data; (3) meteorology; (4) geography/topography; and (5) jurisdictional boundaries, as well as other available data. States and tribes may identify and evaluate other relevant factors or circumstances specific to a particular area.
Following entry of the March 2, 2015, court order, updated designations guidance was issued by the EPA through a March 20, 2015, memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Air Division Directors, U.S. EPA Regions 1-10. This memorandum supersedes the March 24, 2011, designation guidance for the 2010 SO
For designations for the SO
In Round 2 of the designations for the 2010 primary SO
Information providing the basis for this action are provided in several technical support documents (TSDs), a response to comments document (RTC) and other information in the docket. The TSDs, RTC, applicable EPA's guidance memoranda and copies of correspondence regarding this process between the EPA and the states, tribes and other parties, are available for review at the EPA Docket Center listed above in the
When the EPA establishes a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the EPA to designate all areas of the U.S. as either nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable.
This final action addresses designation determinations for certain areas for the 2010 primary SO
Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the EPA to designate areas as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. The CAA then specifies requirements for areas based on whether such areas are attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. In this final rule, the EPA assigns designations to selected areas as required.
This action is exempted from review from the Office of Management and Budget because it responds to the CAA requirement to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This action responds to the requirement to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. This requirement is prescribed in the CAA section 107 of title 1. This action does not contain any information collection activities.
This final rule is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the APA but is subject to the CAA section 107(d)(2)(B) which does not require a notice-and-comment rulemaking to take this action.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandates as described by URM, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This final action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action concerns the designation of certain areas in the U.S. for the 2010 primary SO
Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule, after the EPA promulgated the 2010 primary SO
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and or indigenous peoples, as specified Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in Section IX of this document.
The CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: (i) When the agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator,” or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.”
This final action designating areas for the 2010 primary SO
For the same reasons, the Administrator also is determining that the final designations are of nationwide scope and effect for the purposes of section 307(b)(1). This is particularly appropriate because, in the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's determination that an action is of “nationwide scope or effect” would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or effect beyond a single judicial circuit. H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323, 324,
Thus, any petitions for review of these final designations must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date final action is published in the
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this
The final rules are effective August 11, 2016, except 47 CFR 4.5(b) and (c), 4.7(d) and (e)(2), and 4.9 (a)(2), the second sentence in paragraph (a)(4), the second and sixth sentence in paragraph (b), (e), (f)(2), and the second sentence in paragraph (f)(4) which contain new or modified information collection requirements that have not been approved by OMB. The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in the
Brenda D. Villanueva, Attorney Advisor, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-7005 or
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. Codified in part 4 of our rules, outage reporting requirements support our public safety goals by directing providers to report network outages that exceed specified magnitude and duration thresholds. Outage data give the Commission an overall picture of communications network reliability that
2. In 2004, the Commission required outage reporting for communication disruptions impacting major transport facilities, specifically those with significant traffic-carrying capacity, such as DS3 circuits. The Commission created a metric and threshold for this outage reporting in standards defined in impacts to DS3 circuits; specifically, the Commission adopted DS3 as the base metric and 1,350 DS3 minutes as the reporting threshold. Since then, our part 4 rules require a covered provider to file reports with the Commission in the NORS online database when a DS3 circuit (or its equivalent) that it owns, operates, leases, or otherwise utilizes, experiences a communication disruption that lasts for at least 30 minutes and meets the 1,350 DS3 minute threshold. When the Commission originally adopted the part 4 rules, DS3 circuits were the “common denominator,” that is, the standard facility used in networks for major traffic transport. Today, however, providers use larger, fiber facilities for major traffic transport, and thus have decreased their use of DS3 circuits. This shift has rendered the DS3-based reporting metric and the corresponding 1,350 DS3 minute threshold obsolete and unhelpful for outage analysis. This is borne out by the past ten years' NORS data, which show a marked increase in reported DS3 standard-based incidents that involve only minor disruptions that are unlikely to have any significant communications impact or jeopardize public safety. In the same period, the industry has broadly adopted OC3 as the predominate architecture for major transport facilities.
3. Accordingly, in the
4. The record reflects strong support for adjusting the major transport facility outage metric and threshold as we proposed in the
5. Despite broad support that the major transport facility outage reporting metric should change from a DS3 to a higher capacity, those supporting the change do not agree on what that specific capacity level should be. Several commenters share our view that the new metric should be based on OC3—where the threshold would be 667 OC3 minutes. Others, however, propose alternative metrics and thresholds. For example, some commenters suggest OC12 (or similarly high capacity level) as the appropriate standard because, in their view, it more properly reflects the past decade's network technology advancements than OC3. Others, like CenturyLink, push for an even higher metric,
6. AT&T, on the other hand, recommends an OC12-based metric, and further proposes to measure the transport facility's “working” capacity, as opposed to our current measure of “failed” capacity, as the appropriate standard for reporting. In support of its working capacity proposal, AT&T explains that OC3 circuits are usually on its network edge (
7. Comcast proposes to abandon a time-division multiplexing (TDM)-based metric and advocates using a bandwidth-based metric instead. Comcast advocates for the adoption of a “bandwidth-based standard, such as 1GB outage that lasts for at least 30 minutes.” Comcast further suggests that its approach can accommodate future changes more readily than a TDM-based standard. Verizon disagrees, arguing that more study is needed to ensure Comcast's platform-shift approach would capture a “genuine outage or significant degradation of service,” and “apply on a cross-platform basis.”
8. We adopt our proposals to (i) change the metric and threshold for major facility outages from a DS3-based to an OC3-based metric, and (ii) adjust the threshold to 667 OC3 user minutes accordingly. There is substantial record support for moving our metric to a standard based on higher capacity levels (
9. Moreover, multiple commenters agree that providers have been moving a majority of their traffic onto larger fiber facilities, a trend that is likely to continue. Thus, although a DS3-based
10. At this time, we are not persuaded by those commenters who advocate for a higher OC level. An OC3-based metric will generate the visibility into the network components that an OC12-based metric may not, as it would capture access circuit outages for business customers. Setting a metric at OC12 would provide the Commission with limited, inadequate visibility into major transport facility infrastructure and related outages,
11. In doing so, we affirm the importance of an independent outage reporting requirement for major transport facility failures. Through the collected information on the “potential impact on all communications services of major infrastructure failures,” specifically information about “infrastructure components having significant traffic-carrying capacity,” as the part 4 rules were intended to capture, our work has led to increased collaborative efforts with providers and a more efficient mitigation of outage trends. AT&T's proposal to eliminate major transport facility reporting requirements assumes that (1) our 900,000 user-minute threshold captures the same visibility of major transport facilities as our current DS3 metric and threshold, and that (2) providers only use OC3 circuits as access circuits to conclude that the adoption of our proposal would lead to duplicative reporting. While a few communication disruptions may be reportable outages because they meet both thresholds (900,000 user minutes; 1,350 DS3 minutes), by having the two metrics and thresholds we capture outages caused by switch failures or major transport equipment failures. Therefore, if we eliminated the major transport outage reporting, we would likely miss communication disruptions experienced in interoffice transport facilities. Moreover, while some providers, such as AT&T, may use OC3 circuits as access circuits, other providers may design their networks differently and some customers, like small and medium-sized businesses may be uniquely impacted at the OC3 level. To address networks designed like AT&T's, the rules adopted today capture communication disruptions experienced in higher capacity levels than OC3, by defining OC3 minutes using OC3 “or their equivalents.”
12. The adoption of the OC3 metric ensures an appropriate level of Commission visibility into the resiliency and reliability of critical infrastructure presently—and for at least the near-to-medium term—in use in communications networks for major traffic transport. Such visibility, adjusted to the OC3 level, is an essential component of the Commission's network reliability and public safety duties. Thus, we decline proposals to eliminate major transport facility outage reporting.
13. Finally, two commenters suggest alternative proposals, neither of which provides the needed visibility into the nation's networks for the Commission to ensure communications are reliable and resilient. AT&T's “working capacity” proposal would use a measure such as “the percentage of the circuit dedicated to voice channels.” It would thus require providers to assess whether and when to give the Commission the major transport facility outage reports it needs. Our current requirements give clear direction: once a DS3 circuit experiences a communication disruption for at least 1,350 DS3 minutes and lasts for at least 30 minutes, the provider must report the outage accordingly. As announced in 2004, we continue to believe that “our concern is the failure of working DS3s regardless of the services being carried or the fill at the time of the failure.” Significantly, AT&T's “working capacity” proposal would generate burdens on providers by imposing measurement mechanisms based on a working capacity metric that, as an initial step, would require the provider to identify the percentage of the circuit dedicated to voice channels. It remains unclear whether other providers can measure working capacity on their facilities at this time, or the costs involved with such monitoring. It is also unclear how AT&T's proposal applies in the legacy or the transition network contexts. Further, AT&T's proposal would constitute a shift that does not comport with the logic of outage reporting, which necessarily focuses on what does not work, instead of what does work. Accordingly, we reject AT&T's “working capacity” proposal.
14. Comcast proposes a bandwidth-based standard for major transport facility outages, as described above. The proposal requires further study and therefore cannot be the basis to change our metric and threshold for major transport facility outage reporting at this time. We agree with Comcast that data traffic makes up an increasingly large part of bandwidth needs for transport services. We also note that we are in a state of transition from TDM to IP. This state of transition requires reporting requirements that are sufficient to capture outages in both TDM and IP networks, including specifically those outages impacting physical facilities and network components (
15. Under our current rules, providers must file reports for simplex event outages lasting five days or more. A simplex event occurs when a DS3 circuit, designed with multiple paths to provide circuit resiliency, experiences a failure on one working path. In the
16. Most commenters oppose our proposal to reduce the reporting window from five days to 48 hours. Several commenters argue that factors such as weather, other hazardous conditions, or the complexity of repair tasks could render a 48-hour target unattainable in many cases. Other commenters claim that a 48-hour window would unnecessarily increase reporting burdens as well as compliance costs without corresponding benefits. Some commenters maintain that, rather than tighten the window, the Commission should eliminate outage reporting for simplex events entirety. And, although Verizon supports the status quo, it argues that a three-day threshold would be preferable to a 48-hour threshold as a way to better accommodate service providers' practices and technician maintenance and work schedules.
17. We conclude that simplex outage reporting remains an important part of the situational awareness matrix that NORS provides. The Commission has a responsibility to ensure network reliability and resiliency, including in major transport facilities designed with a built-in path protection. Over the years, we have observed a rise in simplex event outage reports as the rule stands now with the five-day reporting window, which appears to indicate that providers filing these reports are not able to repair the simplex events in a period less than five days.
18. We are persuaded by the record, however, that moving the reporting window from five days to 48 hours may not strike the proper balance between providers' best practice-driven repair and maintenance capabilities and incentives, and the Commission's situational awareness needs and network reliability-assurance goals through simplex event outage reports. We acknowledge, as some commenters argue, that factors such as weather or hazardous conditions impact service repair. We cannot, however, ignore that extended simplex events jeopardize service reliability.
19. Accordingly, we adopt a four-day interval for simplex outage reports. Further, compliance with this revised interval shall begin no later than six (6) months after OMB approval. In this regard, we reject proposals by some commenters to maintain the current five-day window, which we view as inadequate to incent timely repair, and we reject those calls for eliminating simplex reporting altogether. The Commission has a responsibility to ensure network reliability and resiliency, including in major transport facilities designed with built-in path protection, and simplex reporting is a needed and helpful tool used to meet this responsibility.
20. Currently, we require that providers report simplex events lasting longer than 5 days; we have not required reports for events repaired within five days. A provider may experience a short simplex event, conduct necessary repairs within five days and not be obligated to report the event under part 4. We no longer believe that our five-day reporting window for simplex outages is an adequate measurement tool to ensure network reliability and resiliency. The four-day reporting window that we adopt today is designed to alert the Commission to trends that include significant outages, while also accommodating Verizon's suggested need for providing a reasonable amount of time to address the outages before the reporting threshold is met.
21. To determine if a wireless network outage is reportable based on meeting the 900,000 user-minute threshold, a wireless service provider must calculate the number of users “potentially affected” by the outage. Pursuant to Sections 4.7(e) and 4.9(e), providers should perform the calculation “by multiplying the simultaneous call capacity of the affected equipment by a concentration ratio of 8.” This call capacity measurement is typically undertaken at the mobile switching center (MSC). As wireless technologies have evolved, however, providers have made different technological and engineering choices, resulting in a variety of methods by which they measure simultaneous call capacity. These developments have led to a lack of methodological consistency among providers in reporting outages. Such inconsistencies compromise the Commission's ability to detect and analyze wireless network outage trends.
22. We proposed in the
23. The majority of commenters support our proposal to adopt a more standardized method for wireless providers to calculate the number of users “potentially affected” by an outage. While ATIS appreciates our goal, it does recommend that wireless providers should be allowed to pick the method they want to use. CCA opposes the proposal on the basis that it would create two separate metrics, one for Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) outages and the other for all other outages, which would complicate outage reporting or impose administrative burdens on carriers, particularly smaller carriers with limited staff support.
24. The majority of commenters also support adopting the first approach to calculating potentially affected users—multiplying the number of disabled sites by the average number of users per site. Commenters universally oppose the VLR option for determining the number of potentially affected users in a wireless outage. Several commenters assert the use of the VLR makes the calculation more complex, would potentially be costly to implement, and would likely lead to potentially inconsistent reporting. Many commenters also point out that the VLR is being phased out, as wireless technology advances.
25. We believe that a more standardized, technologically neutral method for calculating the number of “potentially affected” users for wireless network outages is critically important to ensure consistency in reporting across providers, regardless of the technological differences in their networks, and that such consistent reporting will enhance our situational awareness through more uniform, accurate, and reliable NORS data. To accomplish these aims, we adopt the first of our proposed approaches: to determine if an outage meets the 900,000 user-minute threshold, a wireless provider must multiply the number of macro cell sites disabled in the outage by the average number of users served per site, which is calculated as the total number of users for the provider divided by the total number of the provider's macro cell sites. For purposes of this calculation, wireless providers should include only traditional cell tower deployments,
26. We agree with commenters that this approach is simpler than the current measurement and can be implemented at little to no additional cost. This simplicity of measurement and implementation promotes consistent outage reporting that should facilitate accurate analysis of the NORS data we receive. Conversely, as several commenters noted, using data from the VLR (
27. Given that the method we adopt is relatively straight-forward for carriers to calculate and will result in uniform, consistent reporting, we disagree with ATIS that wireless providers should be allowed to pick the method they want to use. Such an approach would lead to inconsistent data among providers, thwarting the very goal of adopting the new metric. Also, given that we believe, and providers tend to agree, that the new method will be easy to implement, we disagree with CCA that implementing a new, uniform method for calculating the number of “potentially affected” users with wireless outages would complicate outage reporting or impose administrative burdens on carriers, particularly smaller carriers with limited staff support. Although we are sympathetic to CCA's concern that wireless providers will have to use one calculation for wireless outages generally and another for those affecting PSAPs, the scenarios are different and warrant different treatment. One calculation ensures the Commission has situational awareness of network health holistically, while the other provides direct public safety/emergency preparedness awareness through 911-specific outage reporting. We intend to monitor the need to revisit this reporting scheme based on experience, as small cells become capable of covering more capacity.
28. Finally, we note that Verizon and T-Mobile each propose alternatives that depart from using the “user-minutes” standard. Verizon suggests simply notifying the Commission whenever 30 macro cell sites go out in a particular geographic area, such as a Cellular Market Area (CMA) or Partial Economic Area (PEA). We believe the approach we adopt effectively achieves Verizon's simplicity objectives through per-cell site reporting, maintaining the user-minute reporting standard common across various platforms (wireless, wireline, VoIP, satellite, etc.). Moreover, Verizon's threshold of 30 cell sites within a CMA or PEA would not cover many—if not most—rural areas. T-Mobile advocates allowing carriers to measure outages “using real-time data where technically feasible,” and when it is not feasible, to use the approach we adopt herein. We are concerned that, too often, such data will not be available, which will result in only a few carriers reporting using this data, resulting in the kind of reporting inconsistency we seek to avoid.
29. Under our rules, wireless service providers must report any outage of at least 30 minutes duration that “potentially affects” a 911 special facility (
30. Sprint's proposed method of allocation, however, does not take into account the fact that PSAPs vary greatly in the number of users served. Therefore, in the
31. We adopt our proposal and allow wireless providers to allocate capacity when an outage only affects some PSAPs served by an MSC, so long as the allocation is done in reasonable proportion to the size of the subtending PSAP(s) in terms of number of users. As noted by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), PSAPs vary greatly in size nationwide, and allocating capacity to subtending PSAPs will limit reporting to those significant outages that potentially impact public safety and for which the rules are intended. In determining the number of potentially affected users served by a PSAP, providers can use various sources for the data so long as the method they choose provides a reasonable estimate of the relative size of the PSAP and can be occasionally updated. Reasonable estimates could be based on but are not limited to the following sources: the subtending PSAPs' relative size determined by using the number of 911 calls sent to the PSAP on a historical basis; the number of 911 calls to each PSAP during the outage (if available in real time); or the population served by each PSAP determined either through subjective data or extrapolated from census or other objective data sources that would be relied upon by a population statistician. Any of these methods should account for the relative size of the PSAP affected by the outage. Compliance with this revised allocation standard shall begin no later than nine (9) months after the Effective Date of this requirement.
32. We decline to adopt an across-the-board allocation standard, such as Sprint apparently suggests; however, providers may use the Sprint allocation approach or an alternate method that provides a reasonable estimate of the relative size of the PSAP. Providers must inform the Commission, in writing, of the approach they are using via the first NORS filing in which they are reporting data based on their approach. While Sprint's approach may be simple to calculate, dividing simply by the number of subtending PSAPs would not capture the significance of the outage. Only by allocating capacity based on the size of the PSAP will the estimate reflect an accurate picture of the size of the outage. We recognize, as ATIS and CTIA note, PSAP boundaries can fluctuate and the number of users allocated to the PSAP may change. Based on our experience dealing with PSAPs on a regular basis, we do not anticipate that these fluctuations will be significant or occur frequently, although the Commission would revisit this issue in the future if necessary. So long as the method reasonably captures the relative size of PSAPs, the method of allocation will be acceptable and, to the extent that it is needed, providers can work with Commission staff informally for further guidance.
33. On January 26, 2011, a significant snow and ice storm hit the Washington, DC metropolitan area, causing widespread problems for all affected counties and cities in a several hundred mile swath from central Virginia through Baltimore, Maryland. These problems included the failure of roughly 10,000 wireless 911 calls carried over a major wireless provider's network to reach PSAPs in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland. The provider did not report these outages, nor the problem(s) that caused them, to either the Commission or to affected PSAPs.
34. Inquiry into the outages revealed the root cause: cascading, “wink” failures of the Centralized Automatic Message Accounting (CAMA) trunks used in the provider's 911 network architecture. “Wink” failures occur when a selective router attempts to deliver a 911 call to a PSAP over an idle trunk, but the hand-off protocol between the router and the PSAP (the “wink”) ultimately fails. More specifically, this means that the PSAP's customer premises equipment (CPE) fails to communicate to the selective router that it is “off-hook”,
35. In the
36. Many public safety, state, and carrier commenters agree that the Commission should specify the circumstances under which a “loss of communications” to PSAPs rises to the level of “significant degradation” such that it would be reportable under part 4. APCO advises that “knowledge of a significant degradation of service short of a complete failure is of high value to PSAPs and emergency managers,” a sentiment echoed by NASNA, which believes that “it should not matter” whether a PSAP has suffered a complete or only a partial loss of ability to receive 911 calls.
37. Comcast, CenturyLink and XO Communications do not oppose such an approach, so long as the Commission (i) does not require reporting when re-routing is available for all calls to PSAPs, (ii) requires reporting only when an outage that meets the 30 minute/900,000 user minutes threshold “actually” impacts emergency call handling or completion, and (iii) gives providers sufficient lead time to make the necessary adjustments to ensure compliance (
38. On the other hand, wireless providers are largely opposed to the proposal to include “loss of communications” to PSAPs under Section 4.5(e). Sprint opposes the proposed rules on the grounds that “CMRS providers do not have visibility into PSAP facilities on the PSAP side of the point of demarcation, so CMRS providers would not be able to report on whether a PSAP is experiencing an issue that significantly degrades or prevents 9-1-1 calls from being completed.” Several providers maintain that part 4 reports should only be required where a PSAP is completely unable to receive 911 calls.
39. Part 4's purpose is to collect information on “service disruptions that could affect homeland security, public health or safety.” To meet this goal, the rules must include the kinds of 911 call-impacting trunk failures at issue in the January 2011 DC area storm. Indeed, subsequent work done by the Commission (and, eventually, by industry vis-à-vis ATIS) to identify, study and develop solutions to the CAMA trunk failures is a model of what could—and should—have happened under part 4: A “systematic analysis of the conditions that le[d] to [significant communications] degradations [that] help[ed] reveal potential solutions.” The ability to analyze, develop solutions, and work with providers to implement those solutions enhances public safety.
40. With respect to 911-related outages, our rules are quantitative and qualitative in scope and application, and define reportable outages both in terms of total connectivity failure and qualitative failures. Consistent with that approach, we adopt the proposal in the
41. We find this to be a clear, objective metric about which 911 service providers would “become reasonably aware pursuant to normal business practices,” such as the
42. We also agree with CenturyLink that an 80 percent threshold will not be overly burdensome so long as providers are given the lead time necessary to manage the costs of solution development and implementation needed for their particular networks. To allow time for compliance with other 911-related Commission requirements, CenturyLink initially proposed a one-year implementation deadline for this requirement. We recognize that some providers will be able to move faster and achieve compliance well before one year, given present or scheduled investments in necessary facilities, but others will need more time to comply with the requirements. Further, we note that providers have had ample time to comply with the requirements underlying CenturyLink's concern, but we nevertheless feel a one-year implementation timeframe is appropriate to allow flexibility for smaller carriers. Thus, because it does not interfere with other part 4 reporting requirements, we find that a one-year implementation timeframe should be sufficient for both small and large providers to achieve compliance, and incorporate that timeframe into our rules. Accordingly, compliance with this revised metric shall begin no later than one year after OMB approval.
43. Finally, we disagree with CTIA's argument that our concerns are “speculative”: The 10,000 911 call failures associated with the January 2011 DC area storm had a significant real world impact but was nevertheless deemed non-reportable by a licensee. Nor do we believe our proposals are “unworkable”: 911 service providers should reasonably be expected to have adequate visibility into PSAP trunk failure.
44. A major underlying goal of outage reporting generally, and for reporting on “special offices and facilities” in particular, is for the Federal government—including Federal government users—to have situational awareness of events that impact homeland security and the nation's economic well-being. When the Commission adopted rules in 2004, the Commission deferred to the National Communications System (NCS) to determine which facilities would be considered major military installations or key government facilities, and would, under certain conditions, report “mission-affecting outages” to the NCS. The NCS would in turn forward reports of those outages to the Commission. However, the NCS was dissolved in 2012. Accordingly, in the
45. We note that reporting requirements applicable to “special offices and facilities” have been an integral part of part 4 since the rules' adoption in 2004. As it relates to covered airports, the rules stated that all outages lasting 30 minutes or longer that “potentially affect communications” must be reported, and that “mission-affecting outages” to certain government facilities and military installations (as determined by NCS) also were covered by part 4.
46. We proposed to classify as “special offices and facilities” those facilities enrolled in or eligible for the Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) Program, which prioritizes the restoration and provisioning of circuits used by entities with National Security/Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP) responsibilities and duties. We also asked whether there were alternative classification frameworks that would be more suitable, including broadening the scope of the definition of “special offices and facilities” to include those facilities that are guaranteed priority restoration under “TSP-like” provisions in service-level agreements. We concluded by requesting comment on our assumption that redefining the term “special offices and facilities” to include some variant of TSP-enrolled and/or-eligible facilities would not have an appreciable cost impact.
47. Comments on our “special offices and facilities” classification proposal range from a call to eliminate reporting all together, to multiple alternatives for identifying the subject facilities. Most commenters who oppose the special facilities reporting proposal (to include all TSP enrollees and eligible participants) feel that it would subject too many entities to the rules, without a corresponding increase in public safety or situational awareness; would needlessly divert a provider's resources to tracking down and tagging circuits; and would require providers to identify tens of thousands of new, potentially TSP-eligible parties.
48. Many commenters express support for our proposal so long as the Commission limits applicability of the rules to entities that are (1) enrolled in the TSP program, and (2) only those designated at the highest TSP priority levels (
49. As a preliminary matter, we reject comments suggesting the “special offices and facilities” reporting rule itself is outdated and ought to be eliminated altogether. Under the rules that have been in place since 2004, neither the NCS nor its member agencies appear to have followed the applicable portions of Sections 4.5 (on self-identification as a “special office or facility”) and 4.13 (on member agencies reporting qualifying outages to the NCS, and NCS using its discretion to forward those outage reports to the Commission), so that previous “special offices and facilities” formula did not work as the Commission intended. We do not believe, however, that this fact in and of itself signifies that reporting outages at special offices and facilities is
50. Today, we characterize “special offices and facilities” as those enrolled in Levels 1 or 2 of the TSP program. To close the significant reporting gap on special offices and facilities, we proposed initially to classify all facilities enrolled in, or eligible for, the TSP program as “special offices and facilities” for part 4 reporting purposes. As we observed in the
51. We believe that outages affecting highest-priority TSP enrollees (
52. Section 4.13 directs special offices and facilities to report outages to the now-dissolved NCS, which could then forward the reported information to the Commission at its discretion. Because our rules separately impose requirements on communications providers to report outages that potentially affect “special offices and facilities,” and in light of the elimination of the NCS, we proposed deleting Section 4.13 “as redundant with respect to information that providers are already required to supply, and obsolete with respect to obligations regarding the NCS.”
53. We agree with commenters that we should remove Section 4.13 from our rules as redundant of other provisions within part 4, and accordingly will delete it. While supporting elimination of Section 4.13, AT&T added that we should incorporate elsewhere in the rules a requirement that “affected facilities” initiate contact with the communications provider about the disruption in service. We decline to adopt AT&T's proposal, finding it would unnecessarily preclude alternative methods that providers may use to receive information about outages without corresponding benefit.
54. Airports included in the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) National Plan of Integrated Airports Systems (NPIAS) are designated as falling into one of four categories: Primary commercial service (PR), non-primary commercial service (CM), reliever (RL), and general aviation (GA). Currently, airports designated as PR, CM, and RL are defined as “special offices and facilities” for purposes of Section 4.5(b) of the Commission's rules, and so are subject to outage reporting requirements set forth in Sections 4.11 and 4.13 of the Commission's rules that do not apply to outages affecting other kinds of facilities.
55. In the
56. Regarding narrowing the scope of airports to only those designated “PR,” we noted that most reports concerned outages not significant enough to pose a substantial threat to public safety, particularly at smaller regional airports, and thus we sought comment on amending the definition of “special offices and facilities” to exclude all airports other than those designated “primary commercial service” airports (
57. With respect to our proposal to clarify that only outages that potentially affect critical communications at an airport should be reported, we sought comment on defining the phrase “critical communications.” From 1994 through 2004, under 47 CFR 63.100(a)(6), the Commission defined outages affecting “critical communications” at airports. We also noted that, were we to clarify that our intent was to receive reports only of outages that affected critical communications at airports, then few (if any) outages at an airport would rise to the threshold of being reportable, which in turn would represent an affirmative cost savings to communications providers.
58. In 2004, the Commission proposed to incorporate, but ultimately did not adopt, the Part 63 definition of an outage that “potentially affects” an airport:
(i) Disrupts 50 percent or more of the air traffic control links or other FAA communications links to any airport; or
(ii) has caused an Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) or airport to lose its radar; or
(iii) causes a loss of both primary and backup facilities at any ARTCC or airport; or
(iv) affects an ARTCC or airport that is deemed important by the FAA as indicated by FAA inquiry to the provider's management personnel; or
(v) has affected any ARTCC or airport and that has received any media attention of which the communications provider's reporting personnel are aware.
59. Most commenters agree that we should adopt the proposal in the
60. On whether to narrow the scope of airports covered by our rules, we agree that the rule as currently written is unnecessarily broad. The airport-originating reports received by the Commission in recent years have generally related to outages within the retail sections of an airport. We agree with commenters that requiring providers to report these outages represents a substantial financial and administrative burden on those providers. Moreover, we do not believe that eliminating communications outage reporting from non-primary commercial service and reliever airports will negatively impact the safe operation of our nation's airports and air travel system. We therefore amend Section 4.5(b) to limit the requirement of reporting outages that “potentially affect” an airport to only those determined by the FAA to provide primary commercial service.
61. On the issue of limiting the type of communications subject to this rule, we clarify that our concern is only with outages that potentially affect critical communications at covered airports. We note that the Commission first adopted the “five-point” definition in 1994, to provide clarity and thoroughness in reporting, as 47 CFR 63.100(a)(6), although it did not apply this definition in 47 CFR part 4.5(c). In the
62. We note that commercial aviation is increasingly dependent on information systems that are not collocated with airport facilities and invite comment in the related
63. In 2004, the Commission determined that because the critical communications infrastructure serving airports is landline-based, satellite and terrestrial wireless communications providers were exempt from reporting outages potentially affecting airports. CTIA, Cingular Wireless and Sprint each filed petitions arguing that wireless providers should be exempt from reporting outages pertaining to all other “special offices and facilities,” on the grounds that the rationale for excluding wireless carriers from outage reporting for airports applies equally to all special offices and facilities, that is, that wireless carriers lacked dedicated access lines to all special offices and facilities. In the
64. Commenters on this issue all agree that the current exemption afforded satellite and terrestrial wireless providers with respect to airports ought to be retained, and that such providers further should be exempt from reporting outages potentially affecting all special offices and facilities. Sprint supports extending the wireless providers' exemption to all special offices and facilities, arguing that, as with airports, “the communications infrastructure serving other special offices and facilities remain primarily `landline based,' ” and that unless a wireless carrier provides a dedicated access line to a special office or facility, it has no way of knowing whether one of its phones was being used by personnel at such office or facility.
65. Although wireless service has become ubiquitous in many respects throughout the United States, we have not observed special offices and facilities adopting such service for their critical communications, and otherwise abandoning wireline-based communications. As CTIA points out, the Department of Defense (DoD) commented in our
66. Section 4.2 of our rules provides that reports filed in NORS are presumed confidential, and thus withheld from routine public inspection. This presumption recognizes both the “likelihood of substantial competitive harm from disclosure of information in outage reports” and the Commission's concern that “the national defense and public safety goals that we seek to achieve by requiring these outage reports would be seriously undermined if we were to permit these reports to fall into the hands of terrorists who seek to cripple the nation's communications infrastructure.” The Commission routinely shares NORS reports with the Office of Emergency Communications at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which may “provide information from those reports to such other governmental authorities as it may deem to be appropriate,” but the Commission does not share NORS information directly with state governments. In 2009, the CPUC filed a petition requesting that the Commission amend
67. The
68. Commenters generally support providing state and federal officials with direct access to NORS, as long as there are sufficient security and confidentiality protections to prevent disclosure to competitors or hostile parties. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, for example, notes that it unanimously adopted a resolution in support of the CPUC Petition, adding that “[w]hile California filed the Petition on its own behalf, and some States do receive certain outage information directly from carriers,
69. Commenters disagree, however, on many of the details of implementation for sharing information with state entities, including the nature and extent of confidentiality measures and whether the Commission should attach conditions to the use of information obtained from NORS. Service providers argue for a broad range of conditions such as: Limitations on the number and job description of state personnel with access to NORS; security training or nondisclosure agreements for such personnel; data breach notifications to the Commission, to affected service providers, or to both; tracking or auditing of states' use of NORS information; and loss of access or other penalties for states that fail to maintain confidentiality. Industry commenters also question whether a certification of confidentiality protections “at least equivalent to FOIA” would be an effective safeguard in light of variations in state open records laws and the tendency of some state courts to construe such laws in favor of disclosure. Consequently, several commenters urge the Commission to explore mechanisms other than FOIA and its state equivalents as a basis for stronger legal protections for NORS data.
70. Some commenters urge the Commission to preempt state open records laws to the extent they could allow disclosure of NORS information, while others suggest “a rule with language similar to the statutory language that Congress enacted to govern a federal agency's sharing of homeland security information with a state government.” Commenters point to several other contexts in which the Commission has shared information on a confidential basis with state counterparts, such as the existing processes for sharing state-specific Form 477 data on broadband subscribership and numbering resources from the North American Numbering Plan Administration. But the record also reflects concerns that these models may be inadequate to provide states with real-time access to NORS data or to provide state-specific data on outages affecting multiple states. Intrado further suggests that outage information could not realistically be shared with states on a confidential basis without an extensive redesign of the NORS database and associated form fields.
71. States and service providers also dispute whether use of NORS data should be limited to the states' “traditional role of protecting public health and safety,” a phrase that first appeared in the CPUC Petition but here receives support from industry commenters as a condition on states' access to NORS. AT&T, for example, comments that “the Commission should restrict state commissions' use of the NORS data to evaluating the cause of outages to monitor communications network functionality within a state.” State governments generally agree that they should only receive information on outages within their geographic boundaries but oppose other limitations on their use of NORS data. Michigan, for example, asserts that “[r]estricting the information that states can access regarding service outages would obscure the true picture of the providers' services . . . rendering the reporting—and any conclusions drawn thereon—incomplete.”
72. Commenters also disagree on the extent to which direct access to NORS data should replace state-level outage reporting requirements. Without routine access to NORS data, many states independently require communications providers to file network outage reports with their public utility commissions or similar agencies. Industry commenters argue that “sharing appropriate data with state agencies could minimize the burden on providers for filing multiple reports given that the content of some state outage reporting overlaps with Part 4 reporting,” but also that “the Commission should condition a state's access to NORS data on the state's waiver or elimination of any independent outage reporting requirement imposed by state law.” Intrado further contends that “[d]ual reporting is unnecessary, unduly expensive and inappropriate,” and that “[n]ot every state needs access to NORS.” State commissions tend to disagree, generally arguing that states should remain free to adopt their own independent requirements.
73. The record reflects broad agreement that state and federal partners would benefit from more direct access to NORS data, and we conclude that such a process would serve the public interest if implemented with appropriate and sufficient safeguards. But, with competitively sensitive information and critical communications infrastructure at stake, we also conclude that this process requires more careful consideration of details that may determine the long-term success and effectiveness of the NORS program. Accordingly, while we agree that other FCC processes may be helpful models in developing appropriate procedures for sharing NORS data, we are not persuaded that existing processes for information sharing can be replicated in the context of NORS without important refinements.
74. In light of the significant security and confidentiality concerns described above, as well as federalism concerns that may be inherent in any national coordination of outage reporting requirements, we find that the Commission's part 4 information sharing proposals raise a number of complex issues that warrant further consideration. We seek comment in the related
In the
75. As to benefits, our part 4 rules enhancements will ensure the Commission receives the appropriate type and quality of outage and operational status information to allow us to continue to fulfill our statutory obligation to promote “safety of life and property” by protecting the nation's communications networks. The current part 4 outage reporting rules played a significant and well-documented role in the Commission's successful efforts to promote more reliable and resilient communications networks. The Commission's receipt of data on major transport facility outages, wireless outages, outages that significantly degrade communications to PSAPs, and outages affecting special offices and facilities will enable it to adapt this established practice to a wider cross-section of the critical communication infrastructure.
76. We further believe that the benefits of the adopted rules will substantially exceed the minimal costs expected to be imposed by some of these rules, and we expect that the combined effect of all these rules will be to reduce the costs imposed on affected parties. Outage reporting provides the Commission with critical data on communications reliability that it has no means of gathering on a consistent and reliable basis from any other source. Absent these rules, the Commission lacks adequate visibility into the reliability of major transport facilities and wireless communications infrastructure, and has inadequate visibility into degradations of special offices and facilities as well as communications to PSAPs. This lack of visibility hinders the Commission's ability to discharge its public safety responsibilities. The data gathered by these outage reports will permit Commission staff, working closely with providers and industry working groups, to identify and address systemic vulnerabilities. Such collaborative efforts have led to measurable improvements in network reliability and resiliency, and to the formulation of policies to promote more reliable and secure communications. Moreover, outage reports, particularly in the early stages of a communications disruption, provide critical situational awareness to the Commission that enable it to participate effectively in emergency response and service restoration efforts.
77. In January 2005, in response to the
78. As noted above, reports in this category generally have involved communications outages within the retail sections of an airport. A strict interpretation of current Section 4.5(c)—
79. In 2004, the Commission exempted satellite and terrestrial wireless communications providers from reporting outages potentially affecting airports, on the grounds that the critical communications infrastructure serving those airports was landline-based. CTIA, Cingular Wireless, and Sprint filed petitions urging the Commission to exempt wireless providers from reporting outages pertaining to all other special offices and facilities, positing that the rationale for excluding wireless carriers from outage reporting for airports,
80. As previously noted, we will extend the wireless exemption for satellite and terrestrial wireless carriers to all special offices and facilities. To the extent our decision today responds affirmatively to the requests of CTIA, Cingular, and Sprint to exempt wireless carriers from being required to report outages potentially affecting all special offices and facilities, we grant their
81. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
82. The
83. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Amendments to Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications; New Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Second Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Notice, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were received. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
84. In this
• Update the reporting metric and threshold for communication disruptions impacting major transport facilities from a DS3-based to OC3-based standard, and reduce the reporting window for simplex events (transmission line disruptions) from five days to four days;
• update the reporting of wireless outages by adopting a standardized method to calculate the number of users “potentially affected” in an outage, and clarify that, when an outage affects only some 911 calling centers, or PSAPs, served by a mobile switching center, wireless providers may utilize their own identifiable scheme to allocate the number of potentially affected users so long as the allocation reflects the relative size of the affected PSAP(s);
• find that a “loss of communications” to a PSAP occurs when there is a network malfunction or higher-level issue that significantly degrades or prevents 911 calls from being completed to PSAPs, including when 80 percent or more of a provider's trunks serving a PSAP become disabled;
• update the rules regarding reporting of outages affecting “special offices and facilities” by (i) extending the reporting obligation to high-level enrollees in the Telecommunications Service Priority program, (ii) eliminating outdated and non-applicable rules, (iii) narrowing the types of airports that are considered “special offices and facilities,” and (iv) limiting outage reporting from airports to critical communications only; and
• conclude that direct access to NORS by our state and federal partners is in the public interest, but determine that further consideration is warranted to ensure that the process includes adequate safeguards to maintain the security and confidentiality of sensitive information, and accordingly direct the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) to study these issues and develop recommendations for the successful implementation of our information-sharing proposals.
85. The
86. The legal bases for the rule changes adopted in this
87. The IRFA solicited comment on the impact of the proposed rules to small businesses, as required by the RFA. While no comments were submitted specifically in response to the IRFA, a few commenters express concerns about the estimated costs for reporting. NTCA urges the Commission to consider small rural service providers and their unique circumstances. Other commenters argue that we underestimate the time burdens associated with filing NORS reports. We maintain that the reports cost an estimated $160 to file, and that other costs associated with “setting up and implementing a monitoring regime” are routine business costs independent of our reporting requirements.
88. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by rules such as those adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” the same as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
89. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards. First, nationwide, there
90. The rules adopted in the
91. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in developing its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”
92. The new and updated reporting requirements are minimally necessary to assure that we receive adequate information to perform our statutory responsibilities with respect to the reliability of telecommunications and their infrastructures. The Commission considered other possible proposals and sought comment on the reporting thresholds and the analysis presented. Ultimately, we believe that outage reporting triggers are set sufficiently high as to make it unlikely that small businesses would be impacted significantly by the final rules. In fact, we anticipate that in many instances, small businesses will find their burden decreased by the new reporting thresholds. In the Commission's experience administering NORS, small companies only rarely experience outages that meet the NORS outage reporting threshold criteria, and we expect that small companies will only be slightly impacted by our rule changes adopted today. Telecommunications providers already file required notifications and reports for internal purposes. We believe the only burden associated with the reporting requirements contained here will be the time required to complete any additional notifications and reports following the proposed changes.
93. The Commission will send a copy of this
94.
95.
Airports, Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 4 as follows:
Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o), 251(e)(3), 254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1, and 615c of Pub. L. 73-416, 48 Stat. 1064, as amended, and section 706 of Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j) & (o), 251(e)(3), 254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1, 615c, and 1302, unless otherwise noted.
(b)
(c) A critical communications outage that potentially affects an airport is defined as an outage that:
(1) Disrupts 50 percent or more of the air traffic control links or other FAA communications links to any airport;
(2) Has caused an Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) or airport to lose its radar;
(3) Causes a loss of both primary and backup facilities at any ARTCC or airport;
(4) Affects an ARTCC or airport that is deemed important by the FAA as indicated by FAA inquiry to the provider's management personnel; or
(5) Has affected any ARTCC or airport and that has received any media attention of which the communications provider's reporting personnel are aware.
(d) [Reserved]
(d)
(e) * * *
(2) The mathematical result of multiplying the duration of an outage, expressed in minutes, by the number of end users potentially affected by the outage, for all other forms of communications. For interconnected VoIP service providers to mobile users, the number of potentially affected users should be determined by multiplying the simultaneous call capacity of the affected equipment by a concentration ratio of 8.
(a) * * *
(2) Affects at least 667 OC3 minutes;
(4) * * * (OC3 minutes and user minutes are defined in paragraphs (d) and (e) of § 4.7.) * * *
(b) * * * Providers must report IXC and LEC tandem outages of at least 30 minutes duration in which at least 90,000 calls are blocked or at least 667 OC3-minutes are lost.* * * (OC3 minutes are defined in paragraph (d) of § 4.7.) * * *
(e)(1) All wireless service providers shall submit electronically a Notification to the Commission within 120 minutes of discovering that they have experienced on any facilities that they own, operate, lease, or otherwise utilize, an outage of at least 30 minutes duration:
(i) Of a Mobile Switching Center (MSC);
(ii) That potentially affects at least 900,000 user minutes of either telephony and associated data (2nd generation or lower) service or paging service;
(iii) That affects at least 667 OC3 minutes (as defined in § 4.7);
(iv) That potentially affects any special offices and facilities (in accordance with paragraphs (a) through (d) of § 4.5) other than airports through direct service facility agreements; or
(v) That potentially affects a 911 special facility (as defined in paragraph (e) of § 4.5), in which case they also shall notify, as soon as possible by telephone or other electronic means, any official who has been designated by the management of the affected 911 facility as the provider's contact person for communications outages at that facility, and they shall convey to that person all available information that may be useful to the management of the affected facility in mitigating the effects of the outage on callers to that facility.
(2) In determining the number of users potentially affected by a failure of a switch, a wireless provider must multiply the number of macro cell sites disabled in the outage by the average number of users served per site, which is calculated as the total number of users for the provider divided by the total number of the provider's macro cell sites.
(3) For providers of paging service only, a notification must be submitted if the failure of a switch for at least 30 minutes duration potentially affects at least 900,000 user-minutes.
(4) Not later than 72 hours after discovering the outage, the provider shall submit electronically an Initial Communications Outage Report to the Commission. Not later than 30 days after discovering the outage, the provider shall submit electronically a Final Communications Outage Report to the Commission.
(5) The Notification and Initial and Final reports shall comply with the requirements of § 4.11.
(f) * * *
(2) Affects at least 667 OC3 minutes;
(4) * * * (OC3 minutes and user minutes are defined in paragraphs (d) and (e) of § 4.7.) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for commercial greater amberjack in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) reef fish fishery for the 2016 fishing year through this temporary rule. NMFS projects commercial landings for greater amberjack, will reach the commercial annual catch target (ACT) by July 17, 2016. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial sector for greater amberjack in the Gulf on July 17, 2016, and it will remain closed until the start of the next fishing season on January 1, 2017. This closure is necessary to protect the Gulf greater amberjack resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, July 17, 2016, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2017.
Rich Malinowski, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
NMFS manages the reef fish fishery of the Gulf,
The commercial annual catch limit (ACL) for Gulf greater amberjack is 464,400 lb (210,648 kg), as specified in 50 CFR 622.41(a)(1)(iii). The commercial ACT (equivalent to the commercial quota) is 394,740 lb (179,051 kg), as specified in 50 CFR 622.39(a)(1)(v).
Under 50 CFR 622.41(a)(1)(i), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for greater amberjack when the commercial quota is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the
The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef fish with greater amberjack on board must have landed, bartered, traded, or sold such greater amberjack prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, July 17, 2016. During the commercial closure, the bag and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.38(b)(1) apply to all harvest or possession of greater amberjack in or from the Gulf exclusive economic zone (EEZ). However, from June 1 through July 31 each year, the recreational sector for greater amberjack is also closed, as specified in 50 CFR 622.34(c), and during this recreational closure, the bag and possession limits for greater amberjack in or from the Gulf EEZ are zero. During the commercial closure, the sale or purchase of greater amberjack taken from the EEZ is prohibited. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of greater amberjack that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, July 17, 2016, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor. The commercial sector for greater amberjack will reopen on January 1, 2017, the beginning of the 2017 commercial fishing season.
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf greater amberjack and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.41(a)(1) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial sector for greater amberjack constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule establishing the closure provisions was subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect greater amberjack. The capacity of the commercial sector allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota, and prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in harvest exceeding the commercial ACL.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that some inboard and outboard trailing edge flap rotary actuators may have been assembled with an incorrect no-back brake rotor-stator stack sequence during manufacturing. This proposed AD would require an inspection of the inboard and outboard flap trailing edge rotary actuator for any discrepant rotary actuator. For discrepant rotary actuators, this proposed AD would require replacing the rotary actuator, or determining the flight cycles on the rotary actuator and doing related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and replace rotary actuators having incorrect assembly, which could cause accelerated unit wear that will eventually reduce braking performance. This degradation could lead to loss of no-back brake function and reduced controllability of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 26, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, 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
Fnu Winarto, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6659; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received a report that some inboard and outboard trailing edge flap rotary actuators may have been assembled with an incorrect no-back brake rotor-stator stack sequence during manufacturing. This condition, if not corrected, could result in accelerated unit wear that will eventually reduce braking performance. This degradation could lead to loss of no-back brake function and reduced controllability of the airplane.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 001, dated November 3, 2015. The service information describes procedures for an inspection of the inboard and outboard flap rotary actuator for any discrepant rotary actuator, and procedures for replacing the rotary actuator, or determining the flight cycles on the rotary actuator and applicable related investigative and corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described
“Related investigative actions” are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary action, and (2) are actions that further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.
“Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by August 26, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270032-00, Issue 001, dated November 3, 2015.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Control Systems.
This AD was prompted by a report that some inboard and outboard trailing edge flap rotary actuators may have been assembled with an incorrect no-back brake rotor-stator stack sequence during manufacturing. We are issuing this AD to detect and replace rotary actuators having incorrect assembly, which could cause accelerated unit wear that will eventually reduce braking performance. This degradation could lead to loss of no-back brake function and reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do an inspection of the inboard and outboard trailing edge flap rotary actuator for any discrepant rotary actuator, in accordance with the Accomplishment
(1) Replace the discrepant rotary actuator.
(2) Check the maintenance records to determine the flight cycles of each discrepant rotary actuator and, within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions.
(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 (i)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make those findings. For a repair 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 (h)(4)(i) and (h)(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.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Fnu Winarto, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6659; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period.
We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 2012-24-06. AD 2012-24-06 currently requires replacing the stall warning computer (SWC) with a new SWC that provides an artificial stall warning in icing conditions, and modifying the airplane for the replacement of the SWC. The NPRM was prompted by a determination that airplanes with certain modifications were excluded from the applicability in AD 2012-24-06, and are affected by the identified unsafe condition; and the SWC required by AD 2012-24-06 contained erroneous logic. This action revises the NPRM by reducing the compliance time for replacing the SWCs. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to prevent natural stall events during operation in icing conditions, which could result in loss of control of the airplane. Since this compliance time reduction imposes an additional burden to operators, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.
We must receive comments on this SNPRM by August 26, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; fax 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Since we issued the NPRM, we have determined that the compliance time for replacing the SWCs must be reduced to ensure the unsafe condition is addressed prior to the beginning of icing season after publication of the AD. We have determined that parts are available to support the reduced compliance time.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0218, dated September 29, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. The MCAI states:
A few natural stall events, specifically when operating in icing conditions, have been experienced on SAAB 340 series aeroplanes, without receiving a prior stall warning.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, SAAB developed a modified stall warning system, incorporating improved stall warning logic, and issued Service Bulletin (SB) 340-27-098 and SB 340-27-099, providing instructions to replace the Stall Warning Computer (SWC) with a new SWC, and instructions to activate the new SWC. The new system included stall warning curves optimized for operation in icing conditions, which are activated by selection of Engine Anti-Ice.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2011-0219 [
After that [EASA] AD was issued, in-service experience with the improved stall warning system revealed cases of premature stall warning activation during the take-off phase. In numerous recorded cases, the onset of stall warning occurred without the 6 minute delay after weight off wheels.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to premature stick shaker activation and consequent increase in pilot workload during the take-off phase, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To correct this unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2013-0254 [
Since EASA AD 2013-0254 was issued, SAAB developed a technical solution to eliminate the premature activation of the stall warning ice curves and issued SB 340-27-120 (modification of the existing Stall Warning System installation), SB 340-27-121 (activation of improved SWC for aeroplanes with a basic wing tip) and SB 340-27-122 (activation of improved SWC for aeroplanes with an extended wing tip). SAAB SB 340-27-120 provides modification and installation instructions valid for pre- and post-SB 340-27-097, 340-27-098, SB 340-27-099 and SB 340-27-116 aeroplanes. For aeroplanes modified in accordance with SAAB AB mod. No. 2650 and/or mod. No. 2859 which are no longer registered in Canada, SAAB AB issued SAAB AB SB 340-27-109 to provide modification and installation instructions to remove the ice speed curve function.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0254, which is superseded, and requires modification of the Stall Warning and Identification System and replacement of the SWC with an improved unit.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics has issued the following service information:
• Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-109, dated April 14, 2014.
• Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-116, dated October 18, 2013.
• Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-120, dated July 11, 2014.
• Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-121, dated July 11, 2014.
• Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-122, dated July 11, 2014.
The service information describes procedures for deactivating the stall warning speed curves in the SWCs for certain airplanes; replacing the existing SWCs with new, improved SWCs; and modifying the airplane for the new replacement of the SWC. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this proposed AD. We considered the comments received.
Saab asked that the compliance time in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) for replacement of the SWC be reduced from 12 to 3 months. Saab stated that a global alternative method of compliance (AMOC) was issued by the FAA on September 4, 2014, with a compliance time of 18 months; therefore, operators should have scheduled replacement of the SWCs after the AMOC was issued. Saab also stated that the MCAI required compliance within 18 months after September 29, 2014, and that time has expired. Saab added that reducing the compliance time to 3 months is more in line with the MCAI. In addition, Saab noted that all operators have ordered replacement SWCs, and Saab has those parts in stock and ready for delivery.
We agree with the commenter's request to reduce the compliance time, for the reasons provided. We also note that reducing the compliance time will ensure that new SWCs are installed before the icing season begins. We have changed the compliance time in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD from 12 to 3 months accordingly.
Saab asked that the Saab email address in the proposed AD (in the NPRM) be corrected to specify the following:
We agree with the commenter's request. The email address for Model SAAB 2000 airplanes was inadvertently cited in the NPRM. We have corrected the address in the
Silver Airways asked if we could include subsequent revisions of the referenced service information for AD 2012-24-06.
We do not agree with the commenter's request because this proposed AD does not require the service information referenced in AD 2012-24-06. This proposed AD does refer to the latest available service information for the proposed actions. Referring to a specific service bulletin in an AD and using the phrase “or later FAA-approved revisions” violates Office of the Federal Register regulations for approving materials that are incorporated by reference. However, operators may request approval to use a later revision of the referenced service information as an AMOC under the provisions of paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD. We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.
We estimate that this SNPRM affects 105 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions that are required by AD 2012-24-06, and retained in this SNPRM, take about 78 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $33,000 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2012-24-06 is $39,630 per product.
The new requirement of this SNPRM adds no additional economic burden.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by August 26, 2016.
This AD replaces AD 2012-24-06, Amendment 39-17276 (77 FR 73279, December 10, 2012) (“AD 2012-24-06”).
This AD applies to Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (formerly known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) airplanes, serial numbers 004 through 159 inclusive.
(2) Model SAAB 340B airplanes, serial numbers 160 through 459 inclusive, except serial numbers 170, 342, 362, 363, 367, 372, 379, 385, 395, 405, 409, 431, 441, and 455.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by a determination that airplanes with certain modifications were excluded from the applicability in AD 2012-24-06, and are affected by the identified unsafe condition; and the stall warning computer (SWC) required by AD 2012-24-06 contained erroneous logic. We are issuing this AD to prevent natural stall events during operation in icing conditions, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes identified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, do the deactivation specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable to airplane configuration, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-116, dated October 18, 2013.
(1) For airplanes with a basic wing tip that has been modified using Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-098: Deactivate the stall speed curves in the SWC having part number (P/N) 0020AK6.
(2) For airplanes with an extended wing tip that has been modified using Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-099: Deactivate the stall speed curves in the SWC having P/N 0020AK7.
Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD: Do the replacement specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For airplanes with basic wing tips: Replace all SWCs with new, improved SWCs having P/N 0020AK6-1, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-121, dated July 11, 2014.
(2) For airplanes with extended wing tips: Replace all SWCs with new, improved SWCs having P/N 0020AK7-1, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-122, dated July 11, 2014.
Before or concurrently with the accomplishment of the applicable requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable to airplane configuration.
(1) For airplanes on which either Saab AB Mod No. 2650 or Mod No. 2859 is not installed: Modify the stall warning and identification system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-120, dated July 11, 2014.
(2) For airplanes on which either Saab AB Mod No. 2650 or Mod No. 2859 is installed, or on which both mods are installed: Modify the stall warning and identification system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-27-109, dated April 14, 2014.
After the replacement required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no person may install any SWC having P/N 0020AK, 0020AK1, 0020AK2, 0020AK4, 0020AK6, 0020AK7, or 0020AK3 MOD 1, on any airplane.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0218, dated September 29, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes. This proposed 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 proposed AD would require repetitive detailed, high frequency eddy current (HFEC), and ultrasonic inspections of the center section rear spar upper clevis lugs and horizontal stabilizer rear spar upper lugs, as applicable, for any cracking, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would require replacement of the center section rear spar upper chord with a new part and a serviceable center section assembly. This proposed AD would also require repetitive HFEC and fluorescent dye penetrant inspections of the center section for cracking of the front and rear spar upper clevis lugs or horizontal stabilizer front and rear spar upper lugs, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the rear spar upper clevis lugs of the center section, and in the rear spar upper lugs of the horizontal stabilizer which could result in the loss of structural integrity and controllability of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 26, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, 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
Payman Soltani, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5313; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
As described in FAA Advisory Circular 120-104 (
This proposed AD is intended to complete certain mandated programs intended to support the airplane reaching its LOV of the engineering data that support the established structural maintenance program. An operator detected a cracked center section at the rear spar upper chord clevis lug. This condition, if not corrected, could result in cracking in the rear spar clevis lugs of the horizontal stabilizer center section, which could result in loss of structural integrity and controllability of the airplane.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015. The service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed, HFEC, and ultrasonic inspections of the center section rear spar upper clevis lugs and rear spar upper lugs of the horizontal stabilizer; HFEC and fluorescent dye penetrant inspections for cracking in the front and rear spar upper clevis lugs of the center section and the front and rear spar upper lugs of the horizontal stabilizer. For certain airplanes, the service information describes procedures for replacement of the center section rear spar upper chord with a new part and replacing the center section with a serviceable center section assembly, or installing bushings and sleeves as applicable. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information.” For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this NPRM. Related investigative actions are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.
The phrase “corrective actions” is also used in this NPRM. Corrective actions are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015, specifies to contact the manufacturer for certain instructions, but this proposed AD would require accomplishment of repair methods, modification deviations, and alteration deviations in one of the following ways:
• In accordance with a method that we approve; or
• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.
Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015, specifies a compliance time or repeat interval as “Horizontal Stabilizer Center Section flight cycles” or “Horizontal Stabilizer flight cycles,” this AD requires compliance for the corresponding time or repeat interval in airplane flight cycles.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 84 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary inspections, repairs, and replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these inspections, repairs, and replacements:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by August 26, 2016.
This AD affects AD 84-23-05, Amendment 39-4949 (49 FR 45744, November 20, 1984); and AD 86-12-05, Amendment 39-5321 (51 FR 18771, May 22, 1986).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.
This proposed 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 detect and correct cracking in the rear spar upper clevis lugs of the center section, and in the rear spar upper lugs of the horizontal stabilizer which could result in the loss of structural integrity and controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable time specified in table 1 or table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015, except as specified in paragraph (o) of this AD: Do detailed, high frequency eddy current (HFEC), and ultrasonic inspections of the center section rear spar upper clevis lugs for any cracking, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015; except as specified in paragraph (p) of this AD. Do all related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in table 1 or table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015.
For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 1, in Boeing Alert Service
For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 1, in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015, with a new or serviceable 0.932-inch-thick center section rear spar upper chord: At the applicable time specified in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015, except as specified in paragraph (o) of this AD, do detailed, HFEC, and ultrasonic inspections of the center section rear spar upper chord clevis lugs for any cracking, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015; except as specified in paragraph (p) of this AD. Do all related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015.
For airplanes on which the center section rear spar upper chord was last replaced with a new part or serviceable part: Within the applicable times specified in table 4 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015, except as specified in paragraph (o) of this AD, do detailed, HFEC, and ultrasonic inspections of the center section rear spar upper chord clevis lugs for any cracking, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015; except as specified in paragraph (p) of this AD. Do all related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in table 4 of 1.E., “Compliance” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015.
Within the applicable time specified in table 5 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015, except as specified in paragraph (o) of this AD, do detailed, HFEC, and ultrasonic inspections of the rear spar upper lugs of the horizontal stabilizer for any cracking, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015; except as specified in paragraph (p) of this AD. Do all related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in table 5 of 1.E., “Compliance” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015.
For airplanes with a replaced horizontal stabilizer with a new or serviceable part, within the applicable times specified in table 6 of 1.E., “Compliance” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015, except as specified in paragraph (o) of this AD: Do a detailed, HFEC, and ultrasonic inspection of the rear spar upper lugs of the horizontal stabilizer for any cracking, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015; except as specified in paragraph (p) of this AD. Do all related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in table 6 of 1.E., “Compliance” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015.
Within the applicable times specified in table 7 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015, except as specified in paragraph (o) of this AD: Do HFEC and fluorescent dye penetrant inspections for cracking in the front and rear spar upper clevis lugs of the center section and front and rear spar upper lugs of the horizontal stabilizer, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015; except as specified in paragraph (p) of this AD. Do all related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in table 7 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015.
For airplanes on which the center section rear spar upper chord or horizontal stabilizer rear spar upper chord has been replaced: Within the applicable time specified in table 8 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015, except as specified in paragraph (o) of this AD: Do HFEC and fluorescent dye penetrant inspections for cracking in the front and rear spar upper clevis lugs of the center section or front and rear spar upper lugs of the horizontal stabilizer, as applicable, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015; except as specified in paragraph (p) of this AD. Do all related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in table 8 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015.
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 2 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015, specifies a compliance time or repeat interval as “Horizontal Stabilizer Center Section flight cycles” or “Horizontal Stabilizer flight cycles,” this AD requires compliance for the corresponding time or repeat interval in airplane flight cycles.
If any cracking of the lug is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1033, Revision 2, dated August 7, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the lug using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (r) of this AD.
(1) For Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes: Accomplishment of the inspections specified in paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph A. of AD 84-23-05, Amendment 39-4949 (49 FR 45744, November 20, 1984).
(2) For Model 737-200 and -200C series airplanes: Accomplishment of the inspections specified in paragraph (m) and (n) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraphs A. and B. of AD 86-12-05, Amendment 39-5321 (51 FR 18771, May 22, 1986).
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Payman Soltani, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5313; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet:
Social Security Administration.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to revise our rules so that more of our procedures at the administrative law judge (ALJ) and Appeals Council levels of our administrative review process are consistent nationwide. We anticipate that these nationally consistent procedures will enable us to administer our disability programs more efficiently and better serve the public.
To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive them no later than August 11, 2016.
You may submit comments by any one of three methods—Internet, fax, or mail. Do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method. Regardless of which method you choose, please state that your comments refer to Docket No. SSA-2014-0052 so that we may associate your comments with the correct rule.
Comments are available for public viewing on the Federal eRulemaking portal at
Maren Weight, Office of Appellate Operations, Social Security Administration, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041, (703) 605-7100. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at
We propose revisions to:
(1) The time-frame for notifying claimants of a hearing date;
(2) the information in our hearing notices;
(3) the period when we require claimants to inform us about or submit written evidence, written statements, objections to the issues, and subpoena requests;
(4) what constitutes the official record; and
(5) the manner in which the Appeals Council considers additional evidence.
Over the last few years, we have revised many of our regulations to bolster program integrity and clarify our policy, procedures, and expectations. For example, on June 25, 2014, we made changes to when a claimant must object to appearing at a hearing by video teleconferencing.
As we explained in the final rule on March 20, 2015, “we believe program integrity requires us to obtain complete medical evidence (favorable or unfavorable) in disability claims.”
As we discuss in detail below, we have now had time to implement helpful systems changes and review a study performed by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), in which ACUS evaluated available data and considered various internal and external stakeholder opinions about the impact of our Part 405 rules.
More specifically, in the last decade, we have made significant progress in modernizing our business processes for hearings-level cases and enhancing our use of technology. For example, we now process most disability claims electronically, which allows us to transfer workloads around the country more easily. In addition, we have established five National Hearing Centers (NHC) that process only electronic cases and conduct all hearings via video teleconferencing. The NHCs assist hearing offices that have larger workloads and longer wait times for hearings. Our ability to transfer cases electronically out of a region to an NHC, or to another hearing office with a smaller workload, allows us to serve claimants more efficiently.
As we have increased our use of electronic case files, we also had an opportunity to re-evaluate how we receive and process evidence. Previously, claimants and representatives would mail, fax, or hand-deliver evidence to us, and we would enter the evidence into the case file manually. While these options remain available, improvements in technology now permit claimants and representatives to submit evidence through our Electronic Records Express (ERE) system, which uploads evidence directly into the claimant's electronic case file. Many representatives have also registered to use the Appointed Representative Suite of Services (ARS), which allows them to remotely view the claimant's electronic case file online and verify in real time that we received evidence. Representatives who access the case file through ARS can also view all of the other evidence in the file to verify that the record is complete.
We are also improving how we receive electronic evidence from medical providers. Our Health Information Technology (HIT) program allows us to request and receive a claimant's medical records through an electronic submission. Although we currently use HIT in only a small number of cases, we anticipate that we will expand the HIT program and make use of other technological advances that will make it easier and faster for us to obtain medical records. We expect these enhancements in how we receive evidence will improve our efficiency and ensure consistency in processing claims at the hearings and Appeals Council levels of our administrative review process.
Our progress in the areas discussed above can be undermined if our rules are not nationally consistent. At the beginning of 2006, the hearings and Appeals Council levels of our administrative review process generally operated under nationally consistent rules, set forth in 20 CFR parts 404 and 416. However, on March 31, 2006, we published a final rule that implemented a number of changes to our disability determination process.
For example, our current Part 405 rules require us to provide claimants with notice of their hearings at least 75 days in advance of the hearing.
There is also a difference in claims processing at the Appeals Council level due to the Part 405 rules, especially those that address when the Appeals Council considers additional evidence. Under Parts 404 and 416, the Appeals Council will consider new and material evidence only when it relates to the period on or before the date of the ALJ hearing decision. The Appeals Council will evaluate the entire record, including any new and material evidence that relates to the period on or before the date of the ALJ hearing decision. It will then review the case if it finds that the ALJ's action, findings, or conclusion is contrary to the weight of the evidence currently of record.
However, under Part 405, the Appeals Council will consider additional evidence only where it relates to the period on or before the date of the ALJ hearing decision, and only if the claimant shows that there is a reasonable probability that the evidence, alone or when considered with other evidence of record, would change the outcome of the decision; and: (1) Our action misled the claimant; (2) he or she had a physical, mental, educational, or linguistic limitation(s) that prevented him or her from submitting the evidence
We have always intended to implement nationally consistent rules after we had sufficient time to evaluate the effectiveness of DSI processing. To assist us in evaluating these issues, we asked ACUS to review the impact of our Part 405 regulations at the hearings and Appeals Council levels. Ultimately, in its final report, ACUS deferred to us regarding whether to implement the Part 405 regulations nationwide.
After considering ACUS's suggestions, we first provided additional training to ODAR adjudicators and staff regarding the application of our Part 405 rules. We also incorporated instructions for processing cases originating in the Boston region into our training materials for all staff, including addressing Part 405 issues in several of our quarterly Videos-On-Demand series that focus on new or problematic areas of adjudication. We continue to update sub-regulatory policy to include references and instructions on how to process cases under Part 405. As recommended by ACUS, we made these changes to promote consistent adjudication of Part 405 in the Boston region.
We then carefully considered ACUS's findings on how we receive evidence under Part 405. In its report, ACUS explained that it performed a comparative empirical analysis of data that we provided,
We note that several of ACUS's findings, based on the available data through 2012, are consistent with our experience. For example, ACUS stated that the “average time intervals between issuance of hearing notices and hearings have been rising steadily at both regional and national levels in recent years.”
We considered proposing to adopt a 75-day advance notice requirement nationwide. However, the information available to us indicates that there may be a higher incidence of postponements when we give claimants 75 days or more advance notice of a hearing due to the unavailability of the appointed representative or adjudicator on the date of the scheduled hearing.
The highlights of ACUS's empirical analysis and our own experience also support adopting nationwide rules similar to the existing Part 405 rules that govern how we receive evidence in the Boston region. For example, our experience is that under Parts 404 and 416, some hearings are postponed or require supplemental proceedings due to late submission of evidence. We anticipate that our final rule on the “Submission of Evidence in Disability Claims,”
In its report, ACUS also identified several concerns raised by stakeholders both inside and outside the agency with implementing Part 405 nationwide. For example, ACUS explained that both ALJs and claimants' representative groups agree that two of the most challenging obstacles to timely submission of evidence are: (1) Delays in receipt of evidence from medical providers, and (2) delays in receipt of evidence from the claimant. As previously discussed, we propose changing our rules so that we provide claimants with additional time to inform us about or to obtain and submit written evidence. In doing so, we will also change our notices to ensure claimants are advised of the additional time. To address concerns about delays in receiving evidence from medical providers, we propose to retain the current good cause exceptions used in Part 405. We also propose to add examples, including that we will accept evidence submitted less than 5 business days prior to the hearing if a claimant shows that he or she actively and diligently sought to obtain the evidence promptly, but could not do so.
Based in part on ACUS's evaluation of the good cause exceptions to the Part 405 rule that requires claimants to submit evidence at least 5 business days before a hearing, we propose to clarify when other unusual, unexpected, or unavoidable circumstances beyond the claimant's control prevent earlier identification of or submission of evidence. To accomplish this, we have added examples to illustrate when a claimant meets a good cause exception, such as when a claimant is seriously ill or when evidence is not received until less than 5 business days before the hearing, despite the claimant's active and diligent efforts to obtain the evidence earlier. These examples are not intended to be exhaustive or to illustrate every possible situation, but to illustrate the sorts of situations most likely to arise.
In addition to adding examples regarding the good cause requirements, we also explain that, when reviewing claims that are not based on an application for benefits, the requirement to submit evidence at least 5 business days before a hearing does not apply if our other regulations permit the submission of evidence after the date of an ALJ decision. For example, under current section 416.1476(b)(2) (proposed section 416.1470(b)), in reviewing decisions other than those based on an application for benefits, the Appeals Council will consider evidence in the hearing record and any additional evidence it believes is material to an issue being considered. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) cases under title XVI of the Act that are not based on an application for benefits are excepted from the general rules that limit the Appeals Council's consideration of additional evidence based on the individual's right to reestablish his or her eligibility for title XVI payments during the course of an appeal without filing a new application.
To ensure national consistency in our policy and procedures, we also propose requiring claimants to file written statements about the case, or any objections to the issues, at least 5 business days prior to a scheduled hearing. We further propose to require a claimant to submit subpoena requests at least 10 business days prior to a scheduled hearing. For consistency with these proposed changes, we also propose changes to our regulations to explain what constitutes the official record.
Our proposal that generally requires claimants to submit written evidence at least 5 business days before a hearing also requires that we propose revisions to how the Appeals Council will handle additional evidence it receives on appeal. Under the proposed rule, the Appeals Council would generally consider additional evidence only if it is new and material and relates to the period on or before the date of the hearing decision, and only if the claimant shows that he or she did not submit the evidence at the hearing level because: (1) Our action misled him or her; (2) he or she had a physical, mental, educational, or linguistic limitation(s) that prevented him or her from informing us about or submitting the evidence earlier; or (3) some other unusual, unexpected, or unavoidable circumstance beyond his or her control prevented him or her from informing us about or submitting the evidence earlier. If these requirements are satisfied, the Appeals Council would grant review if there is a reasonable probability that the evidence, alone or considered with the evidence of record, would change the outcome of the hearing level decision. For additional evidence that does not relate to the period on or before the ALJ decision, the Appeals Council would continue to notify the claimant that because of the new evidence, if he or she files a new application within a specified timeframe, the date of the claimant's request for review would constitute a written statement indicating an intent to claim benefits. This means that we would use the date of the claimant's request for Appeals Council review as the filing date for the new application, which we call a protective filing date. In addition to retaining this current practice, the Appeals Council would also provide a claimant with a protective filing date when it finds he or she did not have good cause for not submitting the evidence at the hearing level at least 5 business days before the hearing. Additionally, we also propose to clarify that the Appeals Council may conduct hearing proceedings to obtain additional evidence when needed.
In addition to creating greater uniformity in our procedures, we expect these changes will improve our ability to manage our workloads. Most importantly, we expect these changes to allow us to adjudicate cases and process workloads more efficiently and consistently, leading to better public service overall.
Because these proposed changes would bring the vast majority of Part 405 procedures in line with the procedures in Parts 404 and 416, we also propose to remove Part 405 in its
Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on this proposed rule, we invite your comments on how to make it easier to understand.
For example:
• Would more, but shorter, sections be better?
• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
• Have we organized the material to suit your needs?
• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
• Would a different format make the rule easier to understand,
We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this proposed rule meets the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, OMB reviewed it.
We certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects individuals only. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
These proposed rules contain reporting requirements in the regulation sections §§ 404.929, 404.935, 404.939, 404.949, 404.950(2), 404.968, 416.1429, 416.1435, 416.1439, 416.1449, 416.1450 and 416.1468 that require OMB clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). For sections 404.929, 404.949, 404.950(2), 416.1429, 416.1449, 416.1450(2) of these rules, we previously accounted for the public reporting burdens in the Information Collection Requests for OMB Numbers 0960-0269 and 0960-0710, which the public use to submit the information to SSA. Consequently, we are not reporting these sections. SSA will solicit public comment and will submit separate information collection requests to OMB in the future for regulations sections §§ 404.935, 404.939, 404.968, 416.1435, 416.1439, and 416.1468 as they require OMB clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). We will not collect the information referenced in these burden sections until we receive OMB approval.
Administrative practice and procedure; Blind; Disability benefits; Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Social Security.
Administrative practice and procedure; Blind; Disability benefits; Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance; Public assistance programs; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Social Security; Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
Administrative practice and procedure; Aged, Blind, Disability benefits, Public assistance programs; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend 20 CFR chapter III parts 404, 405, and 416 as set forth below:
Secs. 201(j), 204(f), 205(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (j), 221, 223(i), 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(j), 404(f), 405(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (j), 421, 423(i), 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 5, Pub. L. 97-455, 96 Stat. 2500 (42 U.S.C. 405 note); secs. 5, 6(c)-(e), and 15, Pub. L. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1802 (42 U.S.C. 421 note); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
(b) * * * Subject to the limitations on Appeals Council consideration of additional evidence (see § 404.970(b)), we will consider at each step of the review process any information you present as well as all the information in our records.* * *
* * * Subject to the provisions of § 404.935, you may submit new evidence, examine the evidence used in making the determination or decision under review, and present and question witnesses.* * *
(a) When you submit your request for hearing, you should also submit information or evidence as required by § 404.1512 or any summary of the evidence to the administrative law judge. Each party must make every effort to ensure that the administrative law judge receives all of the evidence and must inform us about or submit any written evidence, as required in § 404.1512, no later than 5 business days before the date of the scheduled hearing. If you do not comply with this requirement, the administrative law judge may decline to consider or obtain the evidence unless the circumstances described in paragraph (b) of this section apply.
(b) If you have evidence required under § 404.1512 but you have missed the deadline described in paragraph (a) of this section, the administrative law judge will accept the evidence if he or she has not yet issued a decision and you show that you did not inform us about or submit the evidence before the deadline because:
(1) Our action misled you;
(2) You had a physical, mental, educational, or linguistic limitation(s) that prevented you from informing us about or submitting the evidence earlier; or
(3) Some other unusual, unexpected, or unavoidable circumstance beyond your control prevented you from informing us about or submitting the evidence earlier. For example, the administrative law judge will accept the evidence if you show that:
(i) You were seriously ill, and your illness prevented you from contacting us in person, in writing, or through a friend, relative, or other person;
(ii) There was a death or serious illness in your immediate family;
(iii) Important records were destroyed or damaged by fire or other accidental cause; or
(iv) You actively and diligently sought evidence from a source and, through no fault of your own, the evidence was not received or was received less than 5 business days prior to the hearing.
(a)
(b)
(1) The specific issues to be decided in your case;
(2) That you may designate a person to represent you during the proceedings;
(3) How to request that we change the time or place of your hearing;
(4) That your hearing may be dismissed if neither you nor the person you designate to act as your representative appears at your scheduled hearing without good reason under § 404.957;
(5) Whether your appearance or that of any other party or witness is scheduled to be made in person, by video teleconferencing, or by telephone. If we have scheduled you to appear at the hearing by video teleconferencing, the notice of hearing will tell you that the scheduled place for the hearing is a video teleconferencing site and explain what it means to appear at your hearing by video teleconferencing;
(6) That you must make every effort to inform us about or submit all written evidence that is not already in the record no later than 5 business days before the date of the scheduled hearing, unless you show that your circumstances meet the conditions described in § 404.935(b); and
(7) Any other information about the scheduling and conduct of your hearing.
If you object to the issues to be decided at the hearing, you must notify the administrative law judge in writing at the earliest possible opportunity, but no later than 5 business days before the date set for the hearing. You must state the reason(s) for your objection(s). The administrative law judge will make a decision on your objection(s) either at the hearing or in writing before the hearing.
(a) A hearing is open to the parties and to other persons the administrative law judge considers necessary and proper. At the hearing, the administrative law judge looks fully into the issues, questions you and the other witnesses, and, subject to the provisions of § 404.935:
(1) Accepts as evidence any documents that are material to the issues;
(2) May stop the hearing temporarily and continue it at a later date if he or she finds that there is material evidence missing at the hearing; and
(3) May reopen the hearing at any time before he or she mails a notice of the decision in order to receive new and material evidence.
(b) The administrative law judge may decide when the evidence will be presented and when the issues will be discussed.
You or a person you designate to act as your representative may appear before the administrative law judge to state your case, present a written summary of your case, or enter written statements about the facts and law material to your case in the record. You must provide a copy of your written statements for each party no later than 5 business days before the date set for the hearing.
(c)
(d)
(2) Parties to a hearing who wish to subpoena documents or witnesses must file a written request for the issuance of a subpoena with the administrative law judge or at one of our offices at least 10 business days before the hearing date. The written request must give the names of the witnesses or documents to be produced; describe the address or location of the witnesses or documents with sufficient detail to find them; state the important facts that the witness or document is expected to prove; and indicate why these facts could not be proven without issuing a subpoena.
(3) We will pay the cost of issuing the subpoena.
(4) We will pay subpoenaed witnesses the same fees and mileage they would receive if they had been subpoenaed by a Federal district court.
(a)
(1) The case is sent to the Appeals Council without a decision or with a recommended decision by the administrative law judge;
(2) You seek judicial review of your case by filing an action in a Federal district court within the stated time period, unless we request the court to remand the case; or
(3) An administrative law judge or the Appeals Council asks for a written record of the proceedings.
(b)
(a) * * * You should submit any evidence you wish to have considered by the Appeals Council with your request for review, and the Appeals Council will consider the evidence in accordance with § 404.970(b). * * *
(a) The Appeals Council will review a case if—
(1) There appears to be an abuse of discretion by the administrative law judge;
(2) There is an error of law;
(3) The action, findings or conclusions of the administrative law judge are not supported by substantial evidence;
(4) There is a broad policy or procedural issue that may affect the general public interest; or
(5) The Appeals Council receives additional evidence that meets the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and there is a reasonable probability that the additional evidence, alone or considered with the evidence of record, would change the outcome of the decision.
(b) Under paragraph (a)(5) of this section, the Appeals Council will only consider additional evidence if you show that it is new and material and relates to the period on or before the date of the hearing decision, and you did not inform us about or submit the evidence by the deadline described in § 404.935 because:
(1) Our action misled you;
(2) You had a physical, mental, educational, or linguistic limitation(s) that prevented you from informing us about or submitting the evidence earlier; or
(3) Some other unusual, unexpected, or unavoidable circumstance beyond your control prevented you from informing us about or submitting the evidence earlier. Examples of circumstances that, if documented, the Appeals Council may consider accepting the evidence include, but are not limited to, the following:
(i) You were seriously ill, and your illness prevented you from contacting us in person, in writing, or through a friend, relative, or other person;
(ii) There was a death or serious illness in your immediate family;
(iii) Important records were destroyed or damaged by fire or other accidental cause; or
(iv) You actively and diligently sought evidence from a source and, through no fault of your own, the evidence was not received or was received less than 5 business days prior to the hearing.
(c) If you submit additional evidence that does not relate to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision as required in paragraph (b) of this section, or the Appeals Council does not find you had good cause for missing the deadline to submit the evidence in § 404.935, the Appeals Council will send you a notice that explains why it did not accept the additional evidence and advises you of your right to file a new application. The notice will also advise you that if you file a new application within 6 months after the date of the Appeals Council's notice, your request for review will constitute a written statement indicating an intent to claim benefits under § 404.630. If you file a new application within 6 months of the Appeals Council's notice, we will use the date you requested Appeals Council review as the filing date for your new application.
(d) If the Appeals Council needs additional evidence, it may remand the case to an administrative law judge to receive evidence and issue a new decision. However, if the Appeals Council decides that it can obtain the evidence more quickly, it may do so, unless it will adversely affect your rights. In some cases, the Appeals Council may obtain this evidence by conducting additional hearing proceedings.
(a)
(b)
Secs. 702(a)(5), 1631, and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1383, and 1383b); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
(b) * * * Subject to the limitations on Appeals Council consideration of additional evidence (see § 416.1470(b)), we will consider at each step of the review process any information you present as well as all the information in our records.* * *
* * * Subject to the limitations in § 416.1435, you may submit new evidence, examine the evidence used in making the determination or decision under review, and present and question witnesses.* * *
(a) When you submit your request for hearing, you should also submit information or evidence as required by § 416.912 or any summary of the
(b) If you have evidence required under § 416.912 but you have missed the deadline described in paragraph (a) of this section, the administrative law judge will accept the evidence if he or she has not yet issued a decision and you show that you did not inform us about or submit the evidence before the deadline because:
(1) Our action misled you;
(2) You had a physical, mental, educational, or linguistic limitation(s) that prevented you from informing us about or submitting the evidence earlier; or
(3) Some other unusual, unexpected, or unavoidable circumstance beyond your control prevented you from informing us about or submitting the evidence earlier. For example, the administrative law judge will accept the evidence if you show that:
(i) You were seriously ill, and your illness prevented you from contacting us in person, in writing, or through a friend, relative, or other person;
(ii) There was a death or serious illness in your immediate family;
(iii) Important records were destroyed or damaged by fire or other accidental cause; or
(iv) You actively and diligently sought evidence from a source and, through no fault of your own, the evidence was not received or was received less than 5 business days prior to the hearing.
(c) Notwithstanding the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, for claims that are not based on an application for benefits, the evidentiary requirement to inform us about or submit evidence no later than 5 business days before the date of the scheduled hearing will not apply if our other regulations allow you to submit evidence after the date of an administrative law judge decision.
(a)
(b)
(1) The specific issues to be decided in your case;
(2) That you may designate a person to represent you during the proceedings;
(3) How to request that we change the time or place of your hearing;
(4) That your hearing may be dismissed if neither you nor the person you designate to act as your representative appears at your scheduled hearing without good reason under § 416.1457;
(5) Whether your appearance or that of any other party or witness is scheduled to be made in person, by video teleconferencing, or by telephone. If we have scheduled you to appear at the hearing by video teleconferencing, the notice of hearing will tell you that the scheduled place for the hearing is a video teleconferencing site and explain what it means to appear at your hearing by video teleconferencing;
(6) That you must make every effort to inform us about or submit all written evidence that is not already in the record no later than 5 business days before the date of the scheduled hearing, unless you show that your circumstances meet the conditions described in § 416.1435(b); and
(7) Any other information about the scheduling and conduct of your hearing.
If you object to the issues to be decided at the hearing, you must notify the administrative law judge in writing at the earliest possible opportunity, but no later than 5 business days before the date set for the hearing. You must state the reason(s) for your objection(s). The administrative law judge will make a decision on your objection(s) either at the hearing or in writing before the hearing.
(a) A hearing is open to the parties and to other persons the administrative law judge considers necessary and proper. At the hearing, the administrative law judge looks fully into the issues, questions you and the other witnesses, and, subject to the provisions of § 416.1435:
(1) Accepts as evidence any documents that are material to the issues;
(2) May stop the hearing temporarily and continue it at a later date if he or she finds that there is material evidence missing at the hearing; and
(3) May reopen the hearing at any time before he or she mails a notice of the decision in order to receive new and material evidence.
(b) The administrative law judge may decide when the evidence will be presented and when the issues will be discussed.
You or a person you designate to act as your representative may appear before the administrative law judge to state your case, present a written summary of your case, or enter written statements about the facts and law material to your case in the record. You must provide a copy of your written statements for each party no later than 5 business days before the date set for the hearing.
(c)
(d)
(2) Parties to a hearing who wish to subpoena documents or witnesses must file a written request for the issuance of a subpoena with the administrative law judge or at one of our offices at least 10 business days before the hearing date. The written request must give the names of the witnesses or documents to be produced; describe the address or location of the witnesses or documents with sufficient detail to find them; state the important facts that the witness or
(3) We will pay the cost of issuing the subpoena.
(4) We will pay subpoenaed witnesses the same fees and mileage they would receive if they had been subpoenaed by a Federal district court.
(a)
(1) The case is sent to the Appeals Council without a decision or with a recommended decision by the administrative law judge;
(2) You seek judicial review of your case by filing an action in a Federal district court within the stated time period, unless we request the court to remand the case; or
(3) An administrative law judge or the Appeals Council asks for a written record of the proceedings.
(b)
(a) * * * You should submit any evidence you wish to have considered by the Appeals Council with your request for review, and the Appeals Council will consider the evidence in accordance with § 416.1470(b). * * *
(a) The Appeals Council will review a case if—
(1) There appears to be an abuse of discretion by the administrative law judge;
(2) There is an error of law;
(3) The action, findings or conclusions of the administrative law judge are not supported by substantial evidence;
(4) There is a broad policy or procedural issue that may affect the general public interest; or
(5) The Appeals Council receives additional evidence that meets the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and there is a reasonable probability that the additional evidence, alone or considered with the evidence of record, would change the outcome of the decision.
(b) In reviewing decisions other than those based on an application for benefits, the Appeals Council will consider the evidence in the administrative law judge hearing record and any additional evidence it believes is material to an issue being considered. However, in reviewing decisions based on an application for benefits, under paragraph (a)(5) of this section, the Appeals Council will only consider additional evidence if you show that it is new and material and relates to the period on or before the date of the hearing decision, and you did not inform us about or submit the evidence by the deadline described in § 416.1435 because:
(1) Our action misled you;
(2) You had a physical, mental, educational, or linguistic limitation(s) that prevented you from informing us about or submitting the evidence earlier; or
(3) Some other unusual, unexpected, or unavoidable circumstance beyond your control prevented you from informing us about or submitting the evidence earlier. Examples of circumstances that, if documented, the Appeals Council may consider accepting the evidence include, but are not limited to, the following:
(i) You were seriously ill, and your illness prevented you from contacting us in person, in writing, or through a friend, relative, or other person;
(ii) There was a death or serious illness in your immediate family;
(iii) Important records were destroyed or damaged by fire or other accidental cause; or
(iv) You actively and diligently sought evidence from a source and, through no fault of your own, the evidence was not received or was received less than 5 business days prior to the hearing.
(c) If you submit additional evidence that does not relate to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision as required in paragraph (b) of this section, or the Appeals Council does not find you had good cause for missing the deadline to submit the evidence in § 416.1435, the Appeals Council will send you a notice that explains why it did not accept the additional evidence and advises you of your right to file a new application. The notice will also advise you that if you file a new application within 60 days after the date of the Appeals Council's notice, your request for review will constitute a written statement indicating an intent to claim benefits under § 416.340. If you file a new application within 60 days of the Appeals Council's notice, we will use the date you requested Appeals Council review as the filing date for your new application.
(d) If the Appeals Council needs additional evidence, it may remand the case to an administrative law judge to receive evidence and issue a new decision. However, if the Appeals Council decides that it can obtain the evidence more quickly, it may do so, unless it will adversely affect your rights. In some cases, the Appeals Council may obtain this evidence by conducting additional hearing proceedings.
(a)
(b)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations.
In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by October 11, 2016.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-101689-16), room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-101689-16), 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, Chelsea Rubin at (202) 317-5800; concerning submission of comments and request for hearing, Regina Johnson at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).
The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking will be reviewed and, pending receipt and evaluation of public comments, approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1545-2268 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 12, 2016.
The collection of information is in § 1.506-1T(a)(2). The likely respondents are organizations described in section 501(c)(4) of the Code (section 501(c)(4) organizations). The collection of information in § 1.506-1T(a)(2) flows from section 506(b) of the Code, which requires a section 501(c)(4) organization to submit a notification including the following items of information: (1) The name, address, and taxpayer identification number of the organization; (2) the date on which, and the state under the laws of which, the organization was organized; and (3) a statement of the purpose of the organization. The temporary regulations provide that the notification must be submitted on Form 8976, “Notice of Intent to Operate Under Section 501(c)(4),” or its successor. In addition to the specific information required by statute, the temporary regulations require that an organization provide any additional information that may be specified in published guidance in the Internal Revenue Bulletin or in other guidance, such as forms or instructions, issued with respect to the notification. Form 8976 requires an organization to provide its annual accounting period to ensure that the statutorily-required items of information in the notification are correlated accurately within existing IRS systems. The burden for the collection of information in § 1.506-1T(a)(2)(i) through (iv) associated with the one-time submission of the notification will be reflected in the burden estimate for Form 8976.
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.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
For copies of recently issued revenue procedures, revenue rulings, notices, and other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin, please visit 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 assessment is not required. It also has 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 the collection of information in these regulations will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The collection of information is in § 1.506-1T(a)(2). The certification is based on the following:
Section 1.506-1T(a)(2) requires the notification to include only a few pieces of basic information: (1) The name, address, and taxpayer identification number of the organization; (2) the date on which, and the state or other jurisdiction under the laws of which, the organization was organized; (3) a statement of the purpose of the organization; and (4) such additional information as may be prescribed by published guidance in the Internal Revenue Bulletin or in other guidance, such as forms or instructions, issued with respect to the notification.
These requirements will have a minimal burden on section 501(c)(4) organizations submitting the notification, including small section 501(c)(4) organizations. The notification requires only basic information regarding the organization and, as such,
For these reasons, 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, these regulations have 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
A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the
The principal author of these regulations is Chelsea R. Rubin, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). 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 proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
[The text of proposed § 1.506-1 is the same as the text for § 1.506-1T published elsewhere in this issue of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Reconsideration; proposed rule.
On June 30, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the residual risk and technology review (RTR) final rule, establishing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the Ferroalloys Production source category. Subsequently, the EPA received two petitions for reconsideration of certain aspects of the final rule. The EPA is announcing reconsideration of and requesting public comment on three issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration, as detailed in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895, at
For questions about this action, contact Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5289; fax number: (919) 541-3207; and email address:
Categories and entities potentially affected by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.
In this action, in response to petitions for reconsideration from Eramet Marietta Inc. (Eramet) and Felman Production LLC (Felman), the EPA is granting reconsideration of and requesting comment on the following three provisions of the final rule: (1) The requirement to conduct PAH performance testing every 3 months for furnaces producing FeMn for the first year with the opportunity to reduce to annual testing after the first year; (2) the requirement to demonstrate compliance with the shop building opacity standards using DCOT in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D7520-13; and (3) the requirement to monitor positive pressure baghouse emissions using BLDS. As described in detail in Section II of this preamble, one or both of the petitioners requested EPA reconsider these three provisions.
This action is limited to the specific three provisions identified previously. Another issue raised by Eramet in their petition concerned the method we used to calculate the PAH emission limits. The EPA is deferring any decisions regarding whether to grant or deny reconsideration of this issue, and we are not reopening comment at this time on this issue. We will determine whether to grant or deny reconsideration of the PAH emission calculation issue no later than when we take final action on the three provisions we are reopening in this action.
We will not respond to any comments addressing any other provisions not being reconsidered in the final Ferroalloys Production NESHAP. Furthermore, the EPA is not proposing any changes to the NESHAP in this action.
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412 and 7607(d)(7)(B)).
There are no changes to the estimated incremental cost impacts that were presented in the Ferroalloys Production RTR final rule published in the
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary major sources. In the first stage, sections 112(d)(2) and (3) require EPA to promulgate national technology-based emission standards for these sources based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT). These standards are commonly called MACT standards. The EPA finalized the MACT standards for Ferroalloys Production on May 20, 1999 (64 FR 27450). In the second stage, section 112(f) of the CAA requires EPA to assess the risks to human health remaining after implementation of the MACT standards. In addition, section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review and revise these MACT standards, as necessary, taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies since EPA promulgated the original standards. The CAA requires EPA to conduct these reviews within 8 years of the publication of the final MACT standards. The EPA typically conducts the two reviews, commonly referred to as the risk and technology reviews (RTRs), concurrently, as we did with the Ferroalloys Production source category. The EPA completed the RTR for the Ferroalloys Production in 2015 and published a final RTR rule for the Ferroalloys Production source category in the
• Revisions to the emission limits for particulate matter (PM) from stacks for the electric arc furnaces (EAF), metal oxygen refining (MOR) processes, and crushing and screening operations, to minimize PM emissions from these units;
• Emission limits for four previously unregulated hazardous air pollutants (HAP): Formaldehyde, hydrogen chloride, mercury, and PAH;
• Requirements to capture process fugitive emissions using effective, enhanced local capture, and duct the captured emissions to control devices;
• An average opacity limit of 8 percent during a full furnace cycle, and a maximum opacity limit of 20 percent for the average of any two consecutive 6-minute periods, to ensure effective capture and control of process fugitive emissions;
• A requirement to conduct opacity observations using the DCOT at least once per week for a full furnace cycle for each operating furnace and each MOR operation for at least 26 weeks. After 26 weeks, if all tests are compliant, facilities can decrease to monthly opacity observations;
• A requirement to use BLDS to monitor PM emissions from all furnace baghouses; and
• A requirement to conduct periodic performance testing to demonstrate compliance with the stack emission limits for the various HAP, including a requirement to conduct PAH performance testing every 3 months for furnaces producing FeMn for the first year with the opportunity to reduce to annual testing after the first year.
Following promulgation of the final rule, the EPA received two petitions for reconsideration of several provisions of the NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). The EPA received a petition dated August 25, 2015, from Eramet, and a petition dated August 28, 2015, from Felman. In the petition submitted by Eramet, the company requested that the EPA reconsider the following provisions: (1) The requirement to conduct PAH performance testing every 3 months for furnaces producing FeMn; (2) the requirement to demonstrate compliance weekly with shop building opacity limits using the DCOT in accordance with ASTM D7520-13; and (3) the PAH emission limits for existing furnaces producing FeMn and silicomanganese (SiMn). In addition, the company requested a stay of 90 days from the effective date of the final amendments pending completion of the reconsideration proceeding. In the petition submitted by Felman, the company stated that they support and adopt the petition submitted by Eramet and requested reconsideration of the requirement to use BLDS to monitor emissions from positive pressure baghouses. Copies of the petitions are provided in the docket (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895).
On November 5, 2015, the EPA sent letters to the petitioners granting reconsideration of the PAH compliance testing frequency issue raised by Eramet and the use of BLDS on positive pressure baghouses raised by Felman. In those letters, the EPA said we were continuing to review the other issues and intend to take final action on those issues no later than the date we take final action on the PAH testing frequency and BLDS issues. The agency also stated in the letters that a
In addition to the two requirements mentioned previously (
In the 2014 supplemental proposal, which was published in the
After publication of the supplemental proposal, we received additional data during the comment period that included one additional emissions test for PAHs, with four runs.
In the development of the final rule, after we completed our technical review of all the data, we incorporated the additional data into our analyses such that the PAH limit for furnaces producing FeMn was based on four emissions tests (with a total of 13 runs). As we explained in the final rule preamble, the additional data we received just before signature of the supplemental proposal and again during the comment period indicated PAH emissions from furnaces producing FeMn were much higher than indicated by the data we had prior to August 2014. For example, the PAH concentrations for furnaces producing FeMn in these additional test reports were over 12 times higher than in previous test reports submitted by Eramet (as shown in appendix A of the
To calculate the MACT floor emissions limit for the final rule, we incorporated all the data (13 runs) and applied our standard 99 percent upper prediction limit (UPL) methodology. Using the UPL methodology resulted in a MACT floor emissions limit of 12 mg/dscm, which was 9 times higher than the MACT floor limit of 1.4 mg/dscm we had proposed in 2014.
With regard to testing frequency, in the 2014 supplemental proposal, we proposed that compliance testing for PAHs from furnaces producing FeMn be conducted at least once every 5 years. However, as we explained in the final rule preamble, due to the large variation in PAH emissions from these furnaces during FeMn production, we required quarterly compliance testing for PAHs (
In their petition, Eramet stated that “without warning, in the final Ferroalloys NESHAP, EPA increased the compliance test frequency for PAH emissions from ferroalloys production by 20 times.” Specifically, the petitioner asserted that in the 2014 supplemental proposal, the EPA proposed PAH compliance testing every 5 years, which the petitioners considered appropriate, and, therefore, they did not comment on the provision. For the 2015 final rule, the EPA increased the PAH compliance testing frequency to quarterly, which the petitioners believe is a surrogate for information collection and not an appropriate use of the rulemaking process. The petitioners also stated that the increased PAH testing frequency increases compliance costs (by about $75,000 for the first year) and increases penalty risks.
After considering the petition from Eramet, the EPA is not proposing any changes to the testing frequency in this action.
However, in consideration of the fact that the public lacked the opportunity to comment on the change in testing frequency, the EPA has granted reconsideration of this issue to provide an opportunity for public comment on the testing frequency. We are proposing no change to the quarterly testing for PAH for furnaces producing FeMn due to the high variability of the PAH test data and the fact that the new data were much higher than the previous data. The inclusion of these data increased the MACT emissions limit for PAHs (which was based on the 99 percent UPL) for furnaces producing FeMn in the 2015 final rule by about 9 times compared to the MACT limit proposed in the 2014 supplemental proposal. In contrast, the PAH concentrations for furnaces producing SiMn were only slightly higher than previous test data received from the facilities. Furthermore, we believe the quarterly testing, along with the collection of process information that a facility may choose to collect voluntarily, could provide data that would help facilities learn what factors or conditions are
In addition, we believe initial quarterly PAH compliance testing will help ensure that the public is not exposed to high concentrations of PAH due to emissions from these facilities. By retaining frequent testing with the ability to reduce the frequency of testing with compliant results, the rule ensures adequate protection of the public while providing an additional incentive for the source to promptly achieve compliance with the new MACT emission limit.
While we are not proposing any changes to the testing frequency for PAHs from FeMn furnaces, we seek comment on whether the goals of gaining a further understanding of factors influencing emissions, incentivizing prompt compliance, and ensuring minimizing public exposures to PAH emissions can be achieved with a slightly different testing frequency such as semiannual testing for 2 years with an opportunity to reduce frequency thereafter to annual testing.
In the 2014 supplemental proposal), we proposed that facilities would need to take opacity readings for an entire furnace cycle once per week per furnace using Method 9 or DCOT to demonstrate compliance with the opacity limits. However, in the supplemental proposal, we also said we were seeking comments on the feasibility and practice associated with the use of automated opacity monitoring with ASTM D7520-13, using DCOT to assess the opacity of visible emissions from roof vents associated with the processes at each facility, and how this technology could potentially be included as part of the requirements in the NESHAP for ferroalloys production sources.
In the final rule, we explained that after considering public comments, we decided to require DCOT, rather than allow its use as an option, and maintained the same frequency as proposed for Method 9, at least for the first 26 weeks. Therefore, the final rule includes a requirement to conduct opacity observations using the DCOT at least once per week for a full furnace cycle for each operating furnace and each MOR operation for at least the first 26 weeks. After 26 weeks, if all tests are compliant, the final rule allows facilities to decrease to monthly opacity observations.
In their reconsideration petitions, the petitioners stated the EPA solicited comment on the use of DCOT for determining opacity from the shop building in the 2014 supplemental proposal, but did not propose to require DCOT in accordance with ASTM D7520-13 as the sole method of demonstrating compliance with the opacity standard. In their supplemental proposal comments (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895-0269 and -0272), the petitioners stated that the EPA had provided insufficient description of what might be required to employ DCOT on the shop buildings, and argued that DCOT was an unproven substitute for EPA Method 9 measurements. They also commented that the open roof monitors in the shop building create variability in plume location and orientation, which they believed would make DCOT infeasible or too costly.
In their reconsideration petitions, the petitioners claimed that the referenced ASTM method expressly applies to stack openings of 7 feet in diameter or less, whereas the shop building open roof monitors at the facilities stretch along the top of the roofline and are hundreds of feet long. They also noted that only one vendor provides DCOT and that the vendor would be free to charge the facilities whatever prices they want.
After considering the petitions from Eramet and Felman, and after gathering, reviewing, and evaluating additional information, the EPA is not proposing any changes to the requirements for demonstrating compliance with the opacity limits. The EPA continues to believe it is appropriate to require ferroalloys production facilities to conduct opacity observations using the DCOT at least once per week for a full furnace cycle for each operating furnace and each MOR operation for at least the first 26 weeks. However, we are seeking comments on this DCOT monitoring requirement and the additional information and analyses which are described in the following paragraphs.
First, we have gathered and reviewed additional information that shows that opacity readings using DCOT are statistically equivalent to EPA Method 9 opacity readings, including several studies from government agencies and other organizations,
Regarding the comment that there is only one vendor, we believe there will be an increase use of DCOT in the future and an increased market and therefore other vendors will begin offering these services. We believe that once other vendors learn that EPA is starting to require DCOT in various rules and other actions, that other vendors will become available, which will likely keep prices approximately the same, or possibly lower. We are not aware of any evidence
In the 2014 supplemental proposal, we proposed that furnace baghouses would be required to be equipped with BLDS. In response to the supplemental proposal, Felman commented that the existing positive pressure baghouses and the baghouse monitoring system at the Felman site constrain the kinds of monitoring and monitoring systems that Felman can use, and that BLDS had never been demonstrated on a positive-pressure baghouse. Felman requested that the EPA not require BLDS on their baghouses because they claimed this would effectively require Felman to replace its existing control system with a negative-pressure baghouse simply to meet the baghouse monitoring requirement. In response to this comment, we explained that the EPA has knowledge of BLDS being used on positive pressure baghouse systems, including those baghouses with large area roof emissions points. A change to a negative pressure baghouse would not be necessary. Manufacturers of BLDSs provide information on how best to deploy their instruments on the outlet of a positive pressure baghouse.
In their petition, Felman asserted that the EPA did not provide any information regarding the use of BLDS on positive pressure baghouses. The commenter stated that in the Response to Comment document,
After considering the petition from Felman, and after gathering, reviewing, and evaluating additional information, the EPA is not proposing any changes to the requirement in the rule that baghouses be equipped with BLDS. The EPA continues to believe it is appropriate to require BLDS to monitor PM emissions from all furnace baghouses. However, we are seeking comments on this BLDS requirement and on the additional information we are adding to the record, as described in the following paragraph.
We are providing additional supporting information on the use of BLDSs on positive pressure baghouses to the record. This includes technical articles
As mentioned previously, we are seeking comments on the BLDS requirement along with data and other information to support such comments. If a commenter disagrees with our assessment regarding feasibility of BLDS on specific types of baghouses, we encourage such commenters to provide a detailed technical explanation and information to support such comments. Furthermore, in this case, we would also request the commenter to provide detailed suggestions as to what alternative monitoring actions could be implemented (instead of BLDS) to ensure continuous compliance with the PM standards.
The EPA does not expect any significant economic impacts as a result of this rule reconsideration. The rule provisions that are being reconsidered in this action were already included in the Economic Impact Analysis for the final rule. Changes to the final rule as a result of this reconsideration, if any, would likely result in lower economic costs and impacts rather than higher costs and impacts.
The EPA does not expect any significant environmental impacts as a result of the reconsideration of the three rule provisions identified in this action, especially since the EPA is not proposing any changes to these provisions. The issues being reconsidered are monitoring and compliance testing issues and, therefore, should not have any effect on the estimated emissions or emission reductions from what we estimated in the final rule.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0676. This proposal document provides reconsideration of three issues raised by petitioners on the final rule, but does not make revisions to the requirements in the final rule. Therefore, this action does not change the information collection requirements previously finalized and, as a result, does not impose any additional burden on industry.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. There are no ferroalloys production facilities that are owned or operated by tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The health risk assessments completed for the final rule are presented in the
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action involves technical standards. In the final rule for this source category, the EPA decided to use ASTM D7520-13, Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity in a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, for measuring opacity from the shop buildings. This standard is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9 and is available from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action only includes reconsideration of certain issues of the final rule that will not affect the emission standards that were finalized on June 30, 2015.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on: A proposal to update the Commission's outage reporting requirement rules to address broadband network disruptions, including packet-based disruptions based on network performance degradation; proposed changes to the rules governing interconnected voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) outage reporting to include disruptions based on network performance degradation, update our outage definition to address incidents involving specified network components; and modify the reporting process to make it consistent with other services; reporting of call failures in the radio access network and local access network, and on geography-based reporting of wireless outages in rural areas; and, refining the covered critical communications at airports subject to the Commission's outage reporting requirements.
Submit comments on or before August 26, 2016, and reply comments on or before September 12, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 15-80 and 11-82, by any of the following methods:
•
• Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. See the
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Brenda D. Villanueva, Attorney Advisor, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-7005, or
This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), FCC 16-63, adopted May 25, 2016, and released May 26, 2016. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 or
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
•
•
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
In this document, the Federal Communication Commission (Commission) seeks comment on proposals to modernize its outage reporting rules to increase its ability to detect adverse outage trends and facilitate industrywide network improvements. The Commission seeks comment on whether and how to update its part 4 outage reporting requirements to address broadband, an increasingly essential element in our nation's communications networks, along with other streamline proposals. This action seeks to ensure that the outage reporting system keeps pace with technological change and addresses evolving consumer preference impact in order to be better equipped to promote the safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication.
In a companion document, a
1. As service providers transition from legacy network facilities to IP-based networks, the Commission must continue to safeguard the reliability and resiliency of all of these interrelated systems. As we have observed before, broadband networks and services increasingly characterize the environment for the nation's 9-1-1 and NG911 emergency communications and, thus, are central to the nation's emergency preparedness, management of crises, and essential public safety-related communications. To meet the challenge of assuring broadband networks in order to carry out its foundational public safety mission, the Commission must maintain visibility into TDM-based networks while simultaneously ensuring similar visibility into commercial IP and hybrid networks. Our current part 4 rules establish outage reporting requirements that are in many ways centered on “circuit-switched telephony” and circuits that involve a “serving central office.” The proposals in this FNPRM, among other things, aim to update the part 4 rules to ensure reliability of broadband networks used to deploy critical communications services, used both for emergency and non-emergency purposes. As discussed below, we believe the part 4 rules can likely provide the Commission with the necessary situational awareness about these broadband networks by updating them to (1) extend their application to broadband Internet access services (BIAS), and (2) revising the manner in which they apply to existing and future dedicated services to ensure a broadband emphasis. In this FNPRM, we propose to use the term “dedicated service” to refer to those services defined in 2013's
2. More specifically, we: (i) Seek comment on proposed reporting requirements, metrics, and narrative elements for both BIAS and dedicated services outages and disruptions, including for network performance degradation; and (ii) propose to amend the Commission's existing outage reporting requirements for interconnected VoIP to reflect disruptions resulting from network performance degradation. In addition, we seek further comment on two proposals raised in the
3. The nation's transition from legacy (
4. Reliance by enterprise customers on dedicated services also continues to increase, reflecting the rapid transition of the nation's businesses and governmental institutions to broadband powered communications. As we recently observed in the
5. The Commission has long recognized the importance of these trends for outage reporting. In 2010, the
6. Numerous commenters in this and other proceedings have urged the Commission to closely monitor changes in network reliability as 911 networks migrate to IP, and others assert that some communities are increasingly dependent upon robust mobile broadband connectivity to deliver, in part, public safety services necessary for modern life. As federal funds are spent to ensure deployment of broadband,
7. In the fulfillment of its public safety responsibilities, no context is more important for the Commission to research and monitor the technology transition than in the deployment of IP-based Next Generation 911 (NG911) networks. NENA's i3 architecture has become the
8. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that “evolving technology, while providing many benefits to PSAPs and the public, also has introduced new and different risks.” For example, 911 service can now be disrupted by software malfunctions, database failures, and errors in conversion from legacy to IP-based network protocols, and such disruptions can occur in unique parts of the IP network that lack analogous counterparts in legacy architecture. Moreover, the consolidation of critical resources in a small number of databases increases the risk of a 911 service failure that affects many PSAPs at once, even across state lines or potentially impacting all of a service provider's customers nationwide. Given the growing deployment of ESINets and the Commission's specific interest in monitoring the reliability and resiliency of PSAP connectivity, we believe that it is critical for the Commission to have visibility into the networks of all providers supporting ESINet service and other critical infrastructure to fully understand reliability and resiliency factors associated with public safety and critical infrastructure communications.
9. For both emergency and non-emergency services, broadband is now (or rapidly is becoming) the communications sector's essential transmission technology and, thus, “an integral component of the U.S. economy, underlying the operations of all businesses, public safety organizations, and government.” These communications sector developments, both in NG911 deployment and in the nation's communications sector more broadly, illustrate how important it is that the Commission's outage reporting requirements evolve at a similar pace as the communications sector. As 911 services evolve toward NG911 combinations of voice, data, and video,
10. Broadband networks now provide an expanding portion of today's emergency and non-emergency communications and have technological flexibility that allows service providers to offer both old and new services over a single architecture. We observe that broadband networks come with their own advantages and challenges; particularly, outages and service disruptions can occur at both at the physical infrastructure and the service levels. We recognize that network outage or service disruptions at the application level in which various services are provided (
11. We further observe that broadband networks' interrelated architectural makeup renders them more susceptible to large-scale service outages. Growing reliance on remote servers and software-defined control has increased the scale of outages, as compared to those in the legacy circuit switched-environment. Through news accounts, we have observed recent outage events impacting customers across several states. Moreover, broadband networks' architectural efficiencies can actually magnify the impact of customer service-affecting outages that do occur. For example, “sunny day” outages—caused by technical issues rather than by environmental ones—have been shown to jeopardize 911 communications services, sometimes across several states. Indeed, broadband networks can support centralized services, but, if not engineered well, they can harm resiliency objectives. We believe that these challenges will likely become more pronounced as broadband increasingly comes to define the nation's communication networks. This new paradigm of larger, more impactful outages suggests that there would be significant value in collecting data on outages and disruptions to commercial broadband service providers. We seek comment on this view.
12. Given the potential for broad-scale, highly-disruptive outages in the broadband environment—and particularly those impacting 911 service—the adoption of updated broadband reporting requirements would likely provide the Commission with more consistent and reliable data on critical communications outages and enable it to perform its mission more effectively in light of evolving technologies and service offerings. Over the past decade, review and analysis of outage reports have enabled the Commission to facilitate and promote systemic improvements to reliability, both through industry outreach, the CSRIC, and formal policy initiatives. The analysis of trends identified from our authoritative outage report repository has proven to be a useful tool for the Commission in working with providers to address outages and facilitate sector-wide improvements. As NG911 functionality becomes centralized within broadband networks, network vulnerabilities specific to emergency services will emerge, and the Commission should be well-informed of such vulnerabilities. We seek comment on this position.
13. In the
14. Where the Commission has required mandatory reporting of disruptions to IP communications (such as interconnected VoIP communications), 47 CFR 4.3(h), 4.9(g), we have found substantial value from that reporting. We believe that the same is true for other IP-based networks and services that have become such a typical feature of our communications networks. Additionally, in the
15. For the reasons set out above, we reaffirm our belief that mandatory reporting requirements would have a positive effect on the reliability and resiliency of broadband networks. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that broadband network outage reporting should be mandatory. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and seek further comment on the issues first raised generally in the
16. In proposing updated broadband outage reporting rules, we must identify the appropriate set of broadband—and broadband-constituent—services, facilities, and infrastructure that are reasonably appropriate for reporting requirements. In the
17. In the
18. For broadband outage reporting purposes, we believe developing reporting metrics that clearly address this functionality to be critical to our continued ability to obtain situational awareness with respect to reliability of the Nation's most important communications services. For the reasons set forth below, we tentatively conclude that the public safety goals to be accomplished through Part 4 assurance for today's broadband communications world can most reasonably be advanced by extending those rules to cover BIAS, and by updating those requirements for measuring the reliability of dedicated services. In our view, these steps are likely to provide us with most if not all of the information reasonably necessary for purposes of our Part 4 mission, while avoiding the need to subject other service providers (such as Internet backbone providers) to these reporting requirements. Our proposal will also ensure that our requirements apply equally and neutrally regardless of technology or provider type. We seek comment on these views. By taking the actions now proposed, we believe we will have the ability to ensure greater broadband network reliability, resiliency, and security. We believe, thus, that this approach would ensure comprehensive outage reporting that, for BIAS and dedicated services, would encompass: (i) All customer market segments to include—mass market, small business, medium size business, specific access services, and enterprise-class (including PSAPs, governmental purchasers, carriers, critical infrastructure industries, large academic institutional users, etc.); (ii) all providers of such services on a technology neutral basis; and (iii) all purchasers (end users) of those services without limitation. We seek comment on this view.
19. The Commission defines BIAS in 47 CFR 8.2(a) as:
20. Existing part 4 rules define relevant providers to include “affiliated and non-affiliated entities that maintain or provide communications networks or services used by the provider,” and require reporting of “all pertinent information on the outage.” We seek specific comment on whether BIAS providers could be used as a central reporting point for all broadband network outages,
21. In what way is the Commission's experience with entities that “maintain or provide communications networks or services used by the provider” (
22. In our
23. To achieve this clarity and emphasis, we first seek comment on the following definition of “dedicated services” for outage reporting purposes:
Services that transport data between two or more designated points,
24. Dedicated services are important components for creating private or virtual private networks across a wide geographic area, and for enabling the secure and reliable transfer of data between locations, including the provision of dedicated Internet access and access to innovative broadband services. Dedicated services, however,
25. As with BIAS, we seek comment on the extent to which those who provide dedicated services are in a position to inform the Commission of the source and cause of reportable outages. We believe that such providers are reasonably likely to be well-informed about these questions. Dedicated services providers also provision service “solutions” for other communications providers; for example, mobile providers use dedicated services to backhaul voice and data traffic.
26. With respect to negotiated terms and conditions for assurance, is it standard industry practice to inform dedicated services customers about the nature of any particular outage or performance issue that triggers assurance guarantees (
27. We recognize that variation between and among dedicated services providers, the services they provide, their customers' service needs and profiles, and other factors may indicate differences that we should consider with respect to the benefits and burdens of dedicated services outage reporting. Accordingly, we seek comment on such differences, and particularly their impact on relative costs and burdens for outage reporting.
28. In sum, to ensure the Commission can effectively discharge its public safety mandates and mission with respect to the communications networks and services upon which America's citizens, businesses and governmental organizations rely, we propose that BIAS providers be required to report outages pursuant to the Commission's part 4 rules, and we propose to update existing outage reporting metrics to reflect broadband disruptions involving dedicated services and provide clarity as to scope of covered services. We recognize that this approach may not capture the full scope of communications services, but we believe, at this time, that the costs of extending our outage reporting requirements beyond these services may exceed the benefits. We seek comment on this view. To the extent commenters believe that there are other communications providers that provide broadband-related services warranting part 4 outage reporting, we invite commenters to elaborate in detail.
29.
30.
31. We propose to consider a network element “critical” if its failure would result in the loss of any user functionality that a covered broadband provider's service provides to its end users. For example, Call Agents, Session Border Controllers, Signaling Gateways, Call Session Control Functions (CSCF), and Home Subscriber Server (HSS) could be considered “critical” network elements. And, we believe that information concerning such failures uniquely provides a sharper network and service vulnerability focus that would further the Commission's public safety and related missions by enhancing the Commission's situational awareness and network operating status awareness. We seek comment on this assessment. We seek comment on these views and on this reporting approach. Additionally, we propose that to the extent unintended changes to software or firmware or unintended modifications to a database are revealed as part of reportable disruptions, we should be apprised of those facts through the outage reports providers submit.
32. As with events involving critical network element failure, we propose to modify the NORS interface to support information regarding outages and disruptions that are associated with unintended changes to software or firmware or unintended modifications to a database. This is consistent with our customary practice of updating NORS information fields as technologies and services evolve. Thus, if unintended changes to software or firmware or unintended modifications to a database played a role in causing an otherwise reportable outage, we would expect providers' reports to include specific detail about the nature of the associated facts. The Commission seeks comment on what information would be useful to understand these exploitations. Would it be helpful for us to use open fields so that outages can be described in terms defined by the provider acknowledging that these may differ from provider to provider? We seek comment on this approach. We recognize that unintended changes to software and firmware and unintended modifications to a database may not always manifest themselves in the form of reportable communications “outages” as traditionally defined by the Commission or as we propose for broadband outage reporting. Are there additional data drop-down menu fields we should consider beyond those proposed above that would provide significant information about broadband outages? Would it be useful to establish pre-defined elements in the reporting metrics that would provide the Commission with more consistent failure information that would improve long-term analysis about unintended changes to software and firmware or unintended modifications to a database that would not otherwise be reported to the Commission? For example should the Commission receive information on distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks in order to support an improved correlation should multiple outages involve DDoS as a contributing factor?
33. Should we expand our definition of Part 4 outages to include failures that are software-related or firmware-induced, or unintended modifications to a database that otherwise do not trigger hard-down outages or performance degradations as described below? For example, should a route hijacking that diverts packets to another country, but still delivers the packets to the consumer be a reportable outage? If so, we seek comment on this position. What process should be followed to make the Commission aware of such disruptions? Would such a requirement be unnecessary were the Commission to adopt proposed data breach reporting requirement proposed in the
34. We seek broad comment on updates to our traditional NORS reporting processes and expectations when reportable broadband outages involving unintended software or firmware changes or unintended modifications to a database occur. We ask commenters to address whether valid public safety, national security, economic security or other reasons support the kind of granular reporting features we now describe for broadband, and whether such reasons justify treating broadband outage reporting differently from non-broadband outage reporting. Do commenters believe that alternative approaches should be explored that could ensure that the Commission receives all useful outage and disruption causation information in a timely and cost-effective manner?
35. Also, as discussed below, we propose to adopt the same reporting approach for interconnected VoIP providers as we have for legacy service providers (
36. We seek comment on other steps the Commission can take to make providers' reporting obligations consistent across services or otherwise streamline the process. As with other covered providers in § 4.9, we seek comment on whether 9-1-1 special facilities are served by BIAS and dedicated services providers such that a
37. By “hard down” outage events, we refer to outages that result in loss of service, as opposed to performance degradations discussed below. In determining the appropriate metrics and thresholds for our broadband outage reporting proposals, we initially sought comment on the method for calculating the “user minutes” potentially affected by a broadband outage. In the
38. We further propose a throughput-based metric and threshold for “hard down” outage events. We propose to define “throughput” as the amount of information transferred within a system in a given amount of time. In light of significant changes in technology and the characteristics of broadband networks generally, we believe that it is appropriate to tailor our approach with respect to the identification of a threshold event for hard-down outages. Since part 4 was first enacted, the communications network architecture and elements, and the services carried over those networks, have grown more diverse and require increased throughput. The Commission currently uses DS3 as the unit of throughput with which to calibrate our reporting threshold for major transport facility outages. The companion document, Report and Order, adopts an updated metric, changing the standard from DS3 to OC3. Given the accumulating amount of throughput required to deliver today's broadband services, we believe that 1 Gbps would function as a modern-day equivalent of the DS3 (45 Mbps) unit originally adopted in 2004, we now calculate that a gigabit can support nearly 24DS3s or 16,000 DS0s (64 Kbps voice or data circuits). This can be seen in the increased deployments of residential communications services offering up to 1 Gbps in download speeds. As such, we tentatively conclude that the threshold reporting criterion for outages should be based on the number of Gbps minutes affected by the outage because Gb is a common denominator used throughout the communications industry as a measure of throughput for high bandwidth services. We further propose to introduce a broadband metric calibrated with the current 900,000 user minute threshold. In today's broadband environment, a typical user requesting “`advanced telecommunications capability' requires access to actual download speeds of at least 25 Mbps.” Accordingly, we calculate that if a facility with throughput totaling 1 Gbps providing individual users 25 Mbps of broadband capacity each, experienced a disruption to communications resulting in a complete outage, 40 individual users would be impacted. We calculate that 1Gbps in throughput total, which is converted to 1,000 Mbps, is divided by 25 Mbps as the download speed for each user, would result in a total of 40 individual users impacted by an outage event. In establishing a gigabit per second user minute threshold, we calculate that 900,000 user minutes divided by the 40 individual users impacted by the outage, results in 22,500 Gbps user minutes. The 22,750 Gbps user minute figure was derived from the current threshold-reporting criterion of “900,000 user minutes.” Assuming a 25 Mbps broadband user connection, as stated in the 2015 Broadband Progress America report, being delivered over a 1 Gbps facility, we compute: 1 Gbps divided by 25 Mbps equals 40 broadband user connections. Then, 900,000 user minutes divided by the number of impacted broadband user connections, 40, equals 22,750 Gbps user minutes. This means that an outage event would become reportable when it resulted in 1 Gbps of throughput affected in which the event exceeds 22,500 Gbps user minutes. To determine whether an outage event is reportable using this threshold, we multiply the size of the facility measured in Gbps, by the duration of the event measured in minutes, and this total generates a Gbps user minute number. If this user minute number exceeds 22,500, then the outage event is reportable to the Commission. So for example, if a 1 Tbps (terabits per second) facility experienced a disruption for 45 minutes, we would multiply 1000 by 45 minutes to get 45,000 Gbps user minutes, and since this figure exceeds 22,500 Gbps user minutes, the outage event would be reportable. We seek comment on the analysis presented, which would establish a reporting threshold of an outage of 1 Gbps (gigabit per second) lasting for 30 minutes or more.
39. We seek comment on a throughput-based metric and its advantages or disadvantages over a user-based metric, for example, a 900,000 user-minute metric that treats broadband users for measurement purposes as those broadband end users that have no service. We also seek comment on whether a throughput-based metric would be more appropriate for some networks rather others. For instance, would our proposed 1 Gbps throughput threshold be appropriate for both BIAS and dedicated services? If not, why not? Should we consider a throughput-based metric for BIAS networks set at a lower threshold, such as 25 megabits per second (Mbps)? Would this result in an unacceptably small number of outages reports? How well would a threshold of 1 Gbps or greater lasting for 30 minutes or more reflect the geographic scope and impact of an outage and the number of subscribers impacted by an outage? Would a user-minute based threshold better capture the geographic scope and impact of an outage and the number of subscribers impacted? Does using a throughput metric in lieu of potentially-affected IP addresses, or that of subscriber count, as described below,
40. In addition, we revisit the 2011 proposal to use potentially-affected IP addresses as a proxy for the number of potentially affected users. If we were to adopt the 2011 proposal, would the metric overstate the impact of an outage? If so, by how much would the outage impact be overstated? How well could a potentially-affected IP addresses threshold effectively communicate the geographic scope and impact of an outage and the numbers of subscribers impacted? Would the increasing deployment of IPv6 addresses affect the utility or accuracy of this proposed metric, and if so, how? Would using subscriber counts as a proxy for number of users be a more accurate metric to determine the impact of an outage? In what ways do providers measure the number of subscribers now? Do providers measure broadband subscribers apart from other types of subscribers? If so, why? Which new subscribers would be counted under the proposed rules that were not previously counted? Should we consider unique subscriber-based metrics for BIAS and dedicated services provider? In instances of outage events lasting less than 30 minutes, should we consider whether subscriber-based metrics should be more indicative of a network outage impacting a large metropolitan area or geographic region? What benefit would this add to our proposed broadband outage reporting rules? Do current provider subscriber counts measure the total number of subscribers served at any given time? Are provider subscriber counts verified at the occurrence of an outage or disruption? What difficulties, if any, would covered broadband providers experience in applying a subscriber-based metric?
41. The following section addresses requirements to report outage events in cases of significant degradation of communication. We tentatively conclude that outage events are reportable when there is a loss of “general useful availability and connectivity,” even if not a total loss of connectivity. We propose a series of metrics and thresholds that we believe could identify outage events that significantly degrade communications: (1) A combination of packet loss and latency metrics and thresholds, and (2) a throughput-based metric and threshold. Finally, we seek comment on the appropriate locations for significant degradation of communication measurements.
42. Consistent with the part 4 definition of an “outage,” in 47 CFR 4.5(a) (defining an “outage” as “a significant degradation in the ability of an end user to establish and maintain a channel of communications as a result of failure or degradation in the performance of a communications provider's network), we again seek comment on whether covered broadband providers should be required to report disruptions that significantly degrade communications, including losses of “generally useful availability and connectivity” as measured by specific metrics. We propose to define “generally useful availability and connectivity” to include the availability of functions that are part of the service provided (
43. In 2011, ATIS stated that losses of “generally useful availability and connectivity” not resulting in a complete loss of service should not be reportable under the part 4 rules, arguing that such events are “more akin to static/noise on legacy communications systems or error rates in DS3 lines . . .” However, the loss of “generally useful availability and connectivity” in the broadband context would appear to be more akin to a legacy voice call during which the users cannot hear or make themselves understood, tantamount to a complete loss of service. This threshold may be even more recognizable in a digital context where effective bandwidth minimums are well understood. Accordingly, we reintroduce the Commission's 2011 proposal to require covered broadband providers to report on losses of `generally-useful availability and connectivity' to capture analogous incidents where customers are effectively unable to use their broadband service. We seek comment on this proposal.
44. We also seek comment on possible alternatives or additional metrics of generally-useful availability and connectivity. For instance, should the Commission create a reporting metric based on loss of network capacity? If so, how should the Commission quantify a loss of a network capacity for reporting purposes, and what would be an appropriate reporting threshold? Should we consider a metric measuring the average relative bandwidth, where providers would compare the active bandwidth against the provider's bandwidth advertised or offered? Could such a metric be quantified for reporting purposes? If so, what would be an appropriate reporting threshold? What other metrics should the Commission consider?
45. In addition to the metrics for generally-useful availability and connectivity, we seek comment on potential broadband outage reporting metrics to measure significant performance degradation in communications. In this regard, we propose two sets of proposals. We propose a throughput metric and seek comment on the appropriate thresholds; or, propose an alternative metric based in a combination of three core metrics, throughput, packet loss, and latency, and seek comment on the appropriate thresholds. Moreover, we seek comment on the extent potential metrics for generally-useful availability and connectivity may overlap with the proposed metrics for significant performance degradation in communications.
46. First, given that throughput is widely recognized as a key metric for measuring network performance, we propose using a throughput metric threshold at 1 Gbps for a network outage or service disruption event lasting 30 minutes or more. In addition to the use of a throughput metric for hard down outages described above, a throughput metric can also determine when a significant degradation occurs in a network, as transmission rates decline as network congestion increases. In addition to throughput, we seek comment on the utility of two other metrics to indicate broadband network performance degradation: Packet loss and latency. Can a proposed 1 Gbps event lasting for 30 minutes threshold capture instances in which the network suffers an outage or experience degradation in network performance? Would it be more appropriate to maintain the 900,000 user-minute threshold for throughput? If so, why? How would it be determined and calculated to be equivalent to a throughput-based metric of 1 Gbps threshold? How would maintaining the
47. We seek comment on a second proposal looking at these proposed core metrics—packet loss, latency, and throughput. To what extent do covered broadband providers already collect information on packet loss, latency, and throughput? Are any of the metrics better suited than others at measuring loss of generally-useful availability and connectivity of broadband service? Are there any alternate performance metrics that would more effectively capture network outages or performance degradation? If so, what are they and do these providers already capture these metrics? Are any of the metrics more cost-effective to monitor than others, and if so, which are they and why?
48. We further propose to limit the scope of outage filings to those events that affect customer communications. We seek comment on this approach. In addition to packet loss, latency, and throughput, we seek comment on whether there are other metrics and thresholds that would be indicative of events impacting customer communications, and comment about other appropriate indicators that might better reflect when these communication services are disrupted. Are there existing measurement efforts regarding network performance and assurance conducted by the Commission that would provide better guidance in determining reporting thresholds for broadband network outage reporting? How are these other performance and assurance measurements aligned with our proven public safety and reliability efforts in our current part 4 outage reporting efforts? How does the use of these network performance metrics complement or conflict with other efforts at the Commission? The Commission is providing guidance across a number of areas regarding network performance metrics and measurements ensuring users receive adequate and expected network performance from their service subscriptions.
49. Alternatively, should we consider adopting more specific, absolute thresholds for packet loss, latency, and throughput to measure significant performance degradation of communications? In 2011, the Commission proposed that service degradation occurs whenever there is a noticeable decline in a network's average packet loss; or average round-trip latency; or average throughput of 1 Gbps, with all packet loss and latency measurements taken in each of at least six consecutive five-minute intervals from source to destination host. If absolute thresholds are preferable, how would these particular thresholds be calculated and determined? Would an absolute threshold still be appropriate with current broadband systems? How could the reporting thresholds for packet loss, latency, and throughput be set at appropriate levels? If any of these thresholds should be adjusted, what is an appropriate threshold? Should the requirement to take performance measurements in six consecutive five-minute intervals be modified? If so, how?
50. We also seek comment on whether these metrics support a consistent reporting standard across all broadband provider groups. The Commission recognizes that there may be different metrics for performance degradation for different services and that a “one size fits all” approach to determining appropriate metrics and thresholds indicating the health and performance of broadband networks and services may not be appropriate depending on underlying quality of service and network performance requirements. Are these metrics (packet loss, latency, and throughput) appropriate to evaluate performance for both BIAS and dedicated services? Alternatively, are these metrics unique to either BIAS or dedicated services, but not appropriate for both? We also seek comment on whether and how the proposed metrics should differentiate mobile broadband from fixed broadband. Are there unique attributes of mobile broadband that we should consider for our outage reporting purposes? For example, will application of these metrics to mobile broadband result in too many instances where, although a threshold is passed, there is no major problem with the network? Why or why not? Are other network performance metrics more suitable for mobile broadband than fixed broadband, and if so, what are they?
51. We also seek comment on the end points from which covered broadband providers would measure whether there is performance degradation. In the case of BIAS providers, we believe that these metrics should be measured from customer premises equipment to the destination host. For dedicated services providers, we believe that the metrics should be measured from the closest network aggregation point in the access network (
52. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions, and on whether these end-points for measurement are appropriate for their corresponding services, as well as the use of the term “destination host” for all providers. Does “destination host” appropriately cover the various types of network facilities used by covered broadband providers to connect to their customers and/or exchange traffic with other networks? Where in a BIAS network should the measurements take place to record the measurements most accurately? In a dedicated services network? At what level of aggregation should the measurements be taken in the BIAS and dedicated services networks? What is the best way to determine the measurement clients and servers are correctly chosen to accurately measure the proposed metrics? Are there other terms that would better describe the point where network traffic is routed and aggregated from several endpoints (
53. Currently, outage reports filed in NORS are withheld from routine public inspection and treated with a presumption of confidentiality. We propose to extend this same presumptive confidential treatment to
54. As noted in the Report and Order companion document, we believe that the proposal of sharing NORS information with state and other federal entities requires further investigation, including where state law would need to be preempted to facilitate information sharing. The Commission currently only shares access to the NORS database with DHS.
55. To assist the Commission, we direct the Bureau to study these issues, and develop proposals for how information could be shared appropriately with state entities and federal entities other than DHS. Accordingly, we seek comment on the current reporting and information sharing practices of broadband and interconnected VoIP providers with state governments and other federal agencies. To which agencies and States do providers already report? To what extent is reporting mandatory? What information on outages or communications disruptions do providers report to other federal and state government bodies? What triggers the reporting process? What are the strengths and weaknesses of any existing reporting and information sharing processes? Could any such processes provide an avenue for the Commission to acquire data that it would otherwise receive under the proposed rules? If so, how? What else should the Commission consider regarding the current reporting and information sharing practices of broadband or interconnected VoIP providers? Commenters should address the impact of any other information sharing activities on the part 4 mandates proposed herein, and how these requirements might be tailored to ensure compliance without undue imposition on those other information sharing activities.
56. We seek comment on how the Commission can strike the right balance between facilitating an optimal information sharing environment and protecting proprietary information. Our goal is to foster reciprocal sharing of information on broadband network outages with federal and state partners, while maintaining confidentiality among those partners and of information contained in the outage reports. To ensure that the Commission benefits from information that providers make available to other federal agencies or state governments, should we encourage covered broadband and interconnected VoIP providers to provide the Commission with copies of any outage reporting that they currently provide to states or other federal agencies, to be treated in the same manner (
57. In the
58. We first consider the costs associated with detecting and collecting information on reportable outages under the proposed rules. As a general matter, we agree with the 2011 comments of the National Association of State Utility Consumers Advocates (NASUCA) and the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, who observe that VoIP and “broadband [providers] should already be collecting outage-related data in the normal course of conducting their businesses and operations.” We believe this to be as true today as it was in 2011 in light of service providers' public assurances of network performance and reliability. If covered broadband providers already collect internal data to support claims of high network reliability through advertising, we anticipate that they would be able to provide the Commission with similar information at minimal incremental cost. For this reason and others discussed below, we do not believe that requiring covered broadband providers to submit outage data would create an unreasonable burden.
59. To begin, we note that nearly all providers already have mechanisms in place for determining when an outage occurs and when it surpasses a certain threshold, and if a provider does not, in today's wired world it would not impose significant cost to install such a mechanism. In fact, the record reflects that providers routinely monitor the operational status of their network as part of the normal course of business. Verizon, for instance, explained in 2011 that it “has significant visibility into its broadband networks.” We believe that any provider with “significant visibility” into its network already has the ability to detect network failures or degradations that result in a total loss of service for a large number of customers. Commenters appear to concede this view. Both ATIS and AT&T proposed alternative reporting schemes that would require reporting on total losses of broadband service, and AT&T submits that its proposed scheme would be “unambiguous and easy-to-apply.” CenturyLink likewise admits that “reporting by a broadband Internet access service provider where there is a loss of connectivity to the Internet by end-users is reasonable.” Comments like these, along with ubiquitous advertising on network reliability and performance generally, suggest that the regime
60. In 2011, industry commenters identified data collection costs as the most significant cost burden of the proposed rules for performance degradation events. However, we note that the proposed reporting based on loss of “generally-useful availability and connectivity” does not concern every degradation in performance an individual user experiences, but is instead designed to capture incidents in which service is effectively unusable for a large number of users or when critical facilities are affected. We seek further comment on the extent to which providers already collect performance degradation data for internal business purposes. In 2011, covered VoIP and broadband providers were already monitoring QoS metrics, like packet loss, latency and jitter, to assess network performance for certain customers. Today, providers collect network performance information as a necessary part of fulfilling their SLA duties for particular customers, and more generally, providers have significant incentives to track these metrics as part of their network, service, and business risk assurance models. In other words, providers' existing approaches for network data collection for premium customers likely already captures losses of “generally-useful availability and connectivity,” and we believe similar techniques could be expanded to monitor network performance on a broader scale. By building on existing provider practices and harnessing technological developments in network monitoring, we believe that the proposals for broadband reporting requirements described herein would not be unduly costly.
61. Because providers already routinely collect much of this data, we believe that the cost of compliance of additional rules would be only the cost of filing additional reports. We seek comment on this discussion. If providers do not collect this data, is there similar or comparable data that providers already collect, or could collect at minimal expense, that would be as cost-effective as data they would report under the proposals outlined above? If so, what data, and would it provide the Commission with adequate visibility into events that cause a loss of generally-useful availability and connectivity for significant numbers of broadband users? What would the cost be of this comparable data?
62. We seek comment on whether we should implement a prototype phase of two years whereby providers would be given significant latitude to determine a qualifying threshold for the “generally useful availability and connectivity” standard. While mandatory reporting would remain, the data collected would positively inform standards in this category that would be broadly applicable to the Commission's needs in this area yet closer to what the reporting companies use for their own operations, thereby reducing potential costs for providers. We seek comment on this analysis.
63. While we anticipate that the costs of filing reports under the proposed rules—
64. In light of growing overlap in corporate ownership of telecommunications network and service offerings, we expect that the inclusion of broadband service under part 4 would largely extend reporting obligations to providers already familiar with reporting via NORS and with internal processes in place for filing reports. We recognize that entities without prior experience reporting in NORS, either themselves or through affiliates, may incur some startup costs,
65. Furthermore, we believe the overall cost to providers of filing disruption reports is a function of the number of reports that are filed and the costs of filing each report. Previously, the Commission has estimated that the filing of each three-stage outage report (
66. On balance, we believe that the proposals of this FNPRM would ultimately produce substantial benefits for the public. As noted above, the nation is increasingly reliant on broadband communications, and disasters, pandemics, and cyber attacks can lead to sudden disruptions of normal broadband traffic flows. Adopted prior to widespread adoption of broadband, the current part 4 outage reporting rules have played a significant role in the Commission's successful efforts to promote reliable and resilient communications networks. The Commission's receipt of data on broadband service (and expanded interconnected VoIP service) disruptions would enable it to adapt this established practice to a world in which IP-based networks are increasingly relied on for critical communications—including 911 service—as well as for financial transactions, health care delivery and management, and the operation of our nation's critical infrastructure.
67. Given the large and rising volume of communications that occur over broadband networks—and the overall economic value these communications represent—even minor increases in network reliability that result from outage reporting could have a significant public benefit. We believe that the benefits of the proposed reporting requirements will be substantial, as increases in network reliability can improve not only business continuity, but also the availability of emergency response,
68. In 2012, the Commission adopted limited outage reporting requirements for interconnected VoIP providers. The rules apply to both facilities-based and non-facilities-based interconnected VoIP services. Since extending outage reporting to interconnected VoIP, however, the Commission has not received consistent, timely, or sufficiently detailed reporting needed to promote greater interconnected VoIP service. This causes us now to raise questions about how to stimulate granular and consistent reporting for interconnected VoIP providers that aids the Commission in its efforts to ensure reliable, resilient, and secure interconnected VoIP service for America's consumers and businesses. Accordingly, we propose to modify the existing reporting process for interconnected VoIP to hew closer to the process for other providers. Lastly, we seek comment on whether there are any differences between interconnected VoIP services and other foregoing broadband services that weigh in favor of establishing different outage reporting rules for the two kinds of service providers.
69. We propose to amend the reporting process for outages involving interconnected VoIP service to harmonize it with the “legacy” services and the proposed reporting process for broadband outages. However, because the current outage reporting rules for interconnected VoIP allow a 24-hour notification period and do not require interim reports, the Commission rarely learns of interconnected VoIP network outages in near real time, and often has to wait almost a month until the final report is submitted to get outage event root causes or other useful information.
70. Under the part 4 rules for legacy services, specifically 47 CFR 4.11, initial reports provide the Commission with timely access to more detailed information about an outage than was available to the provider at the time of the notification, in many cases confirming the existence of an outage that was only tentatively reported at the notification stage. However, such initial reports are not required of interconnected VoIP providers, and what's more, the 24-hour notification period has resulted in notifications being filed well after an outage has commenced, in some cases after the outage has concluded. In one recent instance, an interconnected VoIP outage that affected close to 1 million users across nearly a dozen states was first reported to the Commission twenty-three hours after its discovery. Consequently, for certain interconnected VoIP outages, the Commission must wait until a final report is filed—up to thirty days after the notification is filed—to receive any information about the underlying cause of an interconnected VoIP outage, or even to verify that a reportable outage in fact occurred. Providers also do not report information on the duration of the outage in the notification, and are currently only required to give this information 30 days later in the final report. Thus, we believe that the abridged reporting adopted for interconnected VoIP “hard down” outages creates significant gaps in the Commission's visibility into such outages and hinders its ability to take appropriate remedial actions.
71. We recognize that a lack of visibility into underlying broadband networks may pose challenges to interconnected VoIP providers, in providing information as the cause of the outage. As with BIAS and dedicated services providers, we seek comment on whether interconnected VoIP providers can, do, or should take steps contractually or otherwise to address these problems. At a minimum, we believe that providers should make reasonable efforts to learn about the causes of any reportable outages and thus to be in a position to include such information in their reports, irrespective of whether the affected facility is within their control. Moreover, because interconnected VoIP services often rely on networks that provide BIAS services, we believe that the proposed rules for broadband outage reporting discussed
72. Furthermore, although not independent triggers for part 4 reporting, we expect providers to include information in their reports concerning (1) the failure of facilities that might be considered critical network elements (we consider a network element “critical” if the failure of that network element would result in the loss of any user functionality that an interconnected VoIP provider provides to its consumers, for example, Call Agents, Session Border Controllers, Signaling Gateways, Call Session Control Functions (CSCF), and Home Subscriber Server (HSS)), and (2) unintended changes to software or firmware or unintended modifications to a database to the extent relevant to a given outage or service disruption that is otherwise reportable. As described fully in the broadband reporting process above, reports should include specific details.
73. At this time we believe adopting a three-part reporting structure for interconnected VoIP outages is appropriate, however, as raised for broadband outage reporting above, we seek comment on other steps the Commission can take to make providers' reporting obligations consistent across services or otherwise streamline the process. We seek comment on whether there are ways of automating the outage reporting process for interconnected VoIP service providers beyond what has been possible or has been attempted in the context of legacy communications services. How could such automated reporting be accomplished? What are the advantages of such a reporting mechanism? What are the disadvantages? What cost savings would result from any such automation? Alternatively, we seek comment on maintaining the two-step process for interconnected VoIP outages.
74. We also propose to require interconnected VoIP providers to report outages, per 47 CFR 4.5(a), that reflect losses of “generally useful availability and connectivity” as defined by specific metrics. Similar to our proposal for covered broadband providers, we propose to base performance degradation on packet loss and latency for any network facility used to provide interconnected VoIP service. We also seek comment on whether it would be appropriate to adopt a throughput-based outage metric for interconnected VoIP outage reporting in addition to the throughput metric discussed above with respect to broadband providers,
75. We recognize that adopting performance degradation metrics may result in an increased burden on VoIP providers than their legacy voice counterparts. We ask whether interconnected VoIP's unique technology justifies a departure from a pure “hard down” reporting metric currently required for interconnected VoIP providers and that of legacy counterparts, to the adoption of significant performance degradation reporting metrics? Are there throughput-related issues associated with interconnected VoIP calling? For example, where the service might be up and running, yet be degraded to a point that emergency call information exchange is negatively impacted? Or, given interconnected VoIP's dependence on broadband connectivity, are there vulnerabilities associated with that technology that introduce threat scenarios (
76. As with our current “hard down” outage reporting for interconnected VoIP, we propose to apply any new rules to both facilities-based and non-facilities-based interconnected VoIP. Do interconnected VoIP providers have differing standards for network performance? Are non-facilities-based interconnected VoIP providers able to measure and/or access packet loss, latency, and/or throughput measurements? If not, why? How are non-facilities-based interconnected VoIP providers able to determine the network performance requirements for their service? Should the Commission instead adopt a single metric beyond which voice service is so degraded that it is no longer functional? If so, what is that metric and how and where is it measured? Would multiple metrics be required? If so, what would those metrics and how and where would they be measured? We seek comment on these proposals. We also seek comment on how the proposed metrics apply to mobile VoIP. Will application of these metrics to mobile VoIP result in too many instances where, although the threshold is passed, there is no major problem with the network? Are there other metrics that are better suited for mobile VoIP service? If so, why? Should the monitoring period and metrics adopted for interconnected VoIP outage reporting be consistent with the monitoring period and metrics adopted for broadband outage reporting, or are there differences between the two types of services that warrant different monitoring period and metrics?
77. Alternatively, as with our proposed broadband outage reporting, we could adopt more specific, absolute thresholds for performance degradation, like those proposed in the
78. Moreover, we seek comment on the end-points from which interconnected VoIP providers will need to measure these metrics. We recognize that it is important to consider the methods used to measure the proposed metrics and account for the location of the network elements within the interconnected VoIP networks. This will help to ensure accurate and reliable measurements of the proposed metrics to indicate network performance. We propose that these metrics be measured from “source to the destination host.” The term “source” would refer to the network elements responsible for the setting up the VoIP call (
79. We seek comment on whether the benefits of this additional reporting would outweigh the incremental burden on providers. We estimate that the three-part reporting of an outage—including the filing of a notification, initial report, and final report—imposes only a $300 cost burden on the provider. In 2015, the Commission reviewed 750 interconnected VoIP outages. We expect to review an additional 750 filings for the same number of outages received in 2015, and an additional 75 filings as a result of our performance degradation proposal discussed above. Therefore, 750 plus 75 initial reports multiplied by 0.75 hours it takes to complete an initial report, multiplied by the cost of $80 employee hourly rate, results in $49,500 added cost. We therefore do not believe that expanding the reporting process from two reporting stages to three would significantly increase burdens for providers. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. To the extent that commenters disagree, we seek comment on alternative, least costly methods. Is there similar or comparable data that providers already collect, or could collect at minimal expense given current data collection practices, that would be more cost-effective to report than the data they would report under the proposed rules? If so, what data, and
80. We believe that the benefits of the proposed rules would exceed the costs. Absent the rules proposed in this FNPRM, the Commission lacks sufficient visibility into the reliability and security of interconnected VoIP networks. We believe that relevant data is already routinely collected by interconnected VoIP providers (in real time), so the cost of compliance would be only the cost of filing additional reports where necessary. Moreover, we believe that many of the proposed outage reporting triggers for interconnected VoIP, including those based on performance degradation, are likely to be covered by outages to the underlying broadband networks. Therefore, we do not believe the number of additional reports filed annually pursuant to the proposed rules for interconnected VoIP to be significant. We seek comment on this discussion.
81. In the
82. Requiring reporting of overloading in the access network (wireless radio or non-wireless local access) should not be interpreted to mean that providers must engineer their networks to account for sporadic spikes in calls. Instead, the reports would provide the Commission with data to identify any trends in network overloading. This could include identifying, for example, a particular network equipment that may be more susceptible to failure in mass calling events. Moreover, analysis of this data allows the Commission to work with industry to address situations where the network consistently fails to address “bursty” call patterns similar to those generated after disaster and wide-scale emergencies. While we recognize the point made by several commenters that networks should not be engineered to be able to transmit every single call if everyone in an area attempted to use the network at once, we believe that it would be in the interest of the public for the Commission to receive information on those situations, so that we can determine if, when, and where, blocking is consistently happening.
83. Verizon argues that such reporting that would be collecting information “for the sake of it,” but that point ignores the premise behind our outage reporting rules. Although situational awareness is one goal of outage reporting, another key objective is to provide data to the Commission so that it can detect adverse outage trends and facilitate industry-wide network improvements. Moreover, even though we continue to believe that outage reporting encourages providers to fix problems in their networks, we note that many outage reports do not always result in permanent fixes to the network, as the outage may be a “one-off” event. However, as Public Knowledge observes, we will not know that such events are indeed “one-off,” if the Commission is not aware of them in the first place.
84. Commenters also note that mass calling events are often unpredictable and typically short-lived, so they question the value of reporting on such events. However, because a mass calling event can be the consequence of a widespread disaster, we see significant value in collecting information on such events, as these are the incidents where reliable, resilient communications are most needed. Indeed, understanding failure patterns in moments of network saturation can help identify best practices for network management, as well as help certain communities realize a need for greater detail in emergency management plans. We recognize that reporting on mass calling events will not prevent them from occurring in the future, but we believe there is substantial value in analyzing such events in hindsight, as individual providers are unlikely to be able to see how such an event fits into broader industry practices and performance levels. With such data, the Commission would be in a better position to work with providers to address industry-wide problems and share industry-wide mitigation solutions.
85. With respect to wireless RANs, we propose to consider a cell site to be “out” whenever a cell tower operates at full capacity (
86. We seek comment on these proposals. Is 30 minutes an appropriate time period to measure call blockages? If not 30 minutes, what should be the appropriate interval of measurement for averaging purposes? Is 75 percent of that time at full capacity the right percentage of time? Alternatively, what percentage of calls blocked during that period constitutes congestion of the access network? To the extent that commenters oppose our proposal, we encourage them to propose an alternative, workable metric that addresses our concern. Is there a better way to measure persistent, widespread call failures in the RAN or local access network?
87. With respect to wireless RANs, we seek comment on how providers currently measure call failures. Would providers know of, and therefore have a way to measure, call attempts when a cell site is fully congested and not accepting call origination information? Also, given that wireless calls are constantly initiated and terminated within any given cell site, could some percentage below full capacity constitute congestive RAN failure for purposes of reporting? For congested cell sites, should the usual methods for calculating the total number of customers affected be used, or should some account be taken of the fact that more than the usual number are trying to use the towers during these periods?
88. In the
89. We seek further comment on the specific costs to implement some type of reporting on call failures in both the RAN and the local access network. With regard to the RAN, CCA disagrees with an assumption in the
90. Moreover, we ask if some type of delayed implementation or exemption for smaller and/or rural providers would be helpful, particularly given that we expect network overloading is less likely to be an issue in rural areas. If we were to delay implementation of this type of reporting for a certain subset of providers, what would be a reasonable amount of time? What definition of smaller and/or rural carrier would be most appropriate?
91. In the
93. We propose to amend the part 4 reporting requirements to include wireless outages significantly affecting rural areas. We seek comment on this proposal. Specifically, we propose to require a wireless provider serving a rural area to file outage reports whenever one-third or more of its macro cell sites serving that area are disabled such that communications services cannot be handled through those sites, or are substantially impaired due to the outage(s) or other disruptions affecting those sites. We seek comment on, alternatively, requiring such reporting upon the disabling of one-half of the macro cell sites in the rural area. In regard to the definition of “rural area,” while the Communications Act does not include a statutory definition of what constitutes a rural area, the Commission has used a “baseline” definition of rural as a county with a population density of 100 persons or fewer per square mile. We propose to use this same definition for purposes of determining wireless outages affecting predominantly rural areas. We ask, however, whether other alternative definitions might be of better use in aiding our visibility into rural-specific outages. For example, should we focus on areas designated for the Universal Service Mobility Fund support? Are there other rural area designation tools or proxies that should be considered (
94. Is there a geographic area designation other than “rural area,” as defined above, that aligns better with the way wireless providers measure their own service? For example, is there a subset of any licensed service area (
95. We recognize that this issue may become less critical as wireless providers begin to comply with the new standardized method, adopted in the above Report and Order, for calculating the number of potentially affected users during a wireless outage. By using a national average to determine the potentially affected users per site, will adoption and implementation of this new formula for the number of potentially-affected users increase the reporting of outages in low population areas? We also seek comment on alternative measurements for outages in rural areas. For example, could we adopt a lower user-minute threshold for rural areas to increase the reporting of events affecting rural communities? For example, would a threshold of 300,000 user-minutes in rural areas increase our chances of receiving information on outages that affect rural communities? Conversely, for example, would clear geographic criteria, such as a county-based threshold, for wireless outage reporting simplify the M2M rules for automated outage reporting and eliminate the need for manual interpretations of thresholds?
96. In the
97. We seek further comment on the costs of implementing a new geography-based outage reporting requirement for wireless carriers. Sprint and Verizon argue that carriers would need to develop and deploy additional automation tools and monitoring
98. NTCA comments that the burden would be greater on smaller carriers, where the failure of one tower may trigger a reporting obligation. While we could consider some type of exemption for smaller carriers, we believe smaller and rural carriers cover precisely the areas targeted by this proposal. Therefore, we do not propose to exempt any carriers. We seek comment on this approach.
99. Commercial aviation increasingly depends on information systems that are not collocated with airport facilities, and that may carry critical information. We seek comment on requiring reporting of outages affecting critical aviation information facilities that are not airport-based, either as a function of their status as TSP Level 3 or 4 facilities (facilities are eligible for TSP Level 3 or 4 prioritization if they (3) support public health, safety, and maintenance of law and order activities or (4) maintains the public welfare and the national economic system), or upon some other basis. In particular, we seek comment on whether it is correct to assume that some information systems critical to safe commercial aviation are not located within an airport's facility. If the assumption is accurate, we invite discussion of the architecture of such external systems, including the safeguards currently established for those systems. Were the Commission to explore outage reporting requirements for these systems and facilities, what reporting criteria should it establish? For outage reporting purposes, should the Commission distinguish between facilities enrolled in the TSP program and those facilities that are not? If so, on what basis should the different treatment be premised? What, if any, additional costs might be associated with expanding the reporting obligation to such facilities, whether or not enrolled in TSP?
101. Following the evolution in the country's commercial communications networks, the nation's emergency communications systems are in the process of a critical transition from legacy systems using time-division multiplex (TDM)-based technologies to Next Generation 911 (NG911) systems that utilize IP-based technologies.
102. As a result of this transition, the nation's 911 system will increasingly include the BIAS and dedicated services, which will support a new generation of 911 call services that may be vulnerable to a similarly new generation of disruptions that may not have existed on legacy 911 networks. Indeed, as NG911 services are increasingly provisioned through broadband network elements, disruptions to broadband could impact the provision and reliability of local 911 voice and other shared services essential to emergency response. Accordingly, we believe that monitoring the resiliency of broadband networks supporting that communication is vital to ensure the reliable availability and functionality of 911 services.
103. Regarding our proposal to update the outage reporting rules for interconnected VoIP service providers, 47 U.S.C. 615a-1 instructs the Commission to “take into account any technical, network security, or information privacy requirements that are specific to IP-enabled voice services” and to update regulations “as necessitated by changes in the market or technology, to ensure the ability of an IP-enabled voice service provider to comply with its obligations.” The proposed reporting process seeks to modernize the outage reporting system in light of technology advances and greater consumer adoption of interconnected VoIP service, considering the potential for degradations of service to impact 911 call completion. We seek comment on how Section 615a-1 provides authority to adopt such proposals with respect to interconnected VoIP.
104. We also believe that our proposals to extend outage reporting to the classes of broadband providers and services described in this
105. Additionally, under the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), the Commission may “promulgate regulations to implement the recommendations proposed by the [Emergency Access Advisory Committee (EAAC)], as well as any other regulations, technical standards, protocols, and procedures as are necessary to achieve reliable, interoperable communication that ensures access by individuals with disabilities to an Internet protocol-enabled emergency network, where achievable and technically feasible.” The CVAA has served as the basis for Commission actions with respect to text-to-911 and 911 relay services, and we now seek comment on the application of the CVAA to our proposed disruption reporting rules for broadband.
106. In this vein, the EAAC has recommended that the Commission “issue regulations as necessary to require that target entities, in the development and deployment of NG9-1-1 systems, take appropriate steps to support features, functions and capabilities to enable individuals with disabilities to make multimedia NG9-1-1 emergency calls.” The EAAC enumerated a list of goals for the Commission related to 911 accessibility, including enabling consumers to call 911 using different forms of data, text, video, voice, and/or captioned telephony individually or any combination thereof; ensuring direct access to 911 using IP-based text communications (including real-time text, IM, and email); and facilitating the use of video multimedia calls into a PSAP. The EAAC also recommended that users have the option to call 911 via voice or text service, as well as video and any other emerging technology; that is, callers should be able to access 911 using both old and new communications services—something that a single broadband network can support. We note that these technologies are commonly supported by broadband networks, and to ensure access to 911 for individuals with disabilities, the Commission must be able to assess how those technologies are performing. The EAAC also made clear that its recommendations should evolve with the technology. Perhaps most importantly, the EAAC recommended that the Commission “adopt requirements that ensure that the quality of video, text and voice communications is sufficient to provide usability and accessibility to individuals with disabilities based on industry standards for the environment.”
107. Given that video, text, and voice communications to 911 already traverse broadband networks and will continue to do so as the deployment of Real-Time Text and other NG911 multimedia applications grows, we believe that the CVAA's mandate for ensuring equal access to 911 provides an additional legal basis for the broadband reporting rules proposed herein. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Is disruption reporting the optimal mechanism for the Commission to the quality of video, text and voice communications is sufficient to provide usability and accessibility to individuals with disabilities? Are there alternative measures the Commission could take to ensure broadband network availability for non-traditional 911 calls (
108. The Commission has classified BIAS and dedicated services as telecommunications services under Title II of the Act. As such, we tentatively conclude that the Commission has ample authority under Title II to support the outage reporting requirements proposed in this
As we observed in the
109. With respect to the rules proposed herein for wireless voice and broadband providers, we believe the Commission has further legal authority to support the rules proposed herein under Title III of the Communications Act. The Supreme Court has long recognized that Title III grants the Commission “expansive powers” and a “comprehensive mandate” to regulate the use of spectrum in the public interest,
110. We believe that 47 U.S.C. 303(b) and (r), and 316 provide the Commission with authority to apply outage reporting requirements to mobile BIAS and dedicated services providers and to CMRS providers in instances of call failures in the radio access network. We seek comment on this view.
111. For example, Section 303(b) authorizes the Commission to “[p]rescribe the nature of the service to be rendered by each class of licensed stations and each station within any class.” Addressing the scope of this provision in
112. We also believe 47 U.S.C. 316 authorizes the Commission to impose new conditions on existing licenses if we think such action “will promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” The D.C. Circuit in
113. It is the established policy of the United States to “promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media . . . [and] to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services, ” 47 U.S.C. 230(b). Furthering this policy, in 1996 Congress adopted Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which instructs the Commission to “encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans,” and further provides if the Commission finds advanced telecommunications capability is not being deployed on a reasonable and timely basis, it must “take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability.” Advanced telecommunications capability, as
114. We seek comment on the contours of Section 706 as the basis for broadband-related outage reporting under part 4. We believe broadband network reliability, resiliency, and security are germane to the Commission's effort to achieve Section 706's policy objectives. Mandatory outage reporting could provide the Commission with a dependable stream of objective data to further inform its annual inquiry under Section 706. We seek comment on the value of the proposed broadband outage reporting to our annual Section 706 inquiry, and on our more general view that such disruption and outage data may aid the Commission's efforts to ensure the deployment of advanced telecommunications capabilities to all Americans.
115. Further, the
116. In addition, we believe that the Commission's universal service funding mandates, underlying principles and goals, as set forth in Section 254 of the Act, authorize us to require broadband disruption and outage reporting, as proposed, where the data from such reports could promote, or provide assurance (
117. Certain broadband providers receive significant federal universal service high-cost broadband funding support through the USF's Connect America Fund (CAF) program. To the extent that covered broadband providers receive (or have received) such funding, it is logical to require a certain level of assurance in behalf of the end users who fund it. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that such part 4 reporting is an appropriate assurance expectation from CAF recipients, and we seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
118. On that basis, we now ask how part 4 disruption reporting concerning the broadband services funded through CAF support can best be used to assure these services and infrastructure? Specifically, should such assurance measurements be sought through our part 4 disruption reporting, or through some other mechanism? How might the collection and analysis of CAF recipient outage information help inform our Section 254-related considerations and assist us in achieving our universal service goals? Should the Commission adopt standards for network health to be made part of CAF funding considerations? If so, what mechanisms should be used by the Commission to effectuate that approach? Should the Commission, for example, condition CAF support on standards that take into account a provider's network health as revealed through outage reporting?
119.
120. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the proposals addressed in the
121. The proceeding this
122. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (FNPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided in “Comment Period and Procedures” of this FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of this FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
123. The FNPRM seeks additional comment on various proposals first issued in a
124. The FNPRM seeks comment on:
• A proposal to require the filing of outage reports for broadband network disruptions (BIAS and dedicated service), including disruptions based on network performance degradation;
• proposed updates to the rules governing interconnected VoIP outage reporting to (i) include disruptions based on network performance degradation, and (ii) modify the VoIP outage reporting process to make it consistent with other services;
• reporting of call failures in wireless radio access networks and wireline local access networks, and on geography-based reporting of wireless outages in rural areas;
• refining the definition of “critical communications” at airports.
125. The Commission traditionally has addressed network resiliency and reliability issues by working with communications service providers to develop and promote best practices that address network vulnerabilities, and by measuring the effectiveness of best practices through outage reporting. Under the Commission's current rules, the outage reporting process has been effective in improving the reliability, resiliency and security of legacy networks and the services delivered over them. Commission staff collaborate with individual providers and industry organizations to review outage results and address areas of concern. These efforts have resulted in significant reductions in outages affecting legacy services, including interconnected VoIP. The aim of extending outage reporting to cover broadband providers is to achieve a similar result: Enhance the reliability, resiliency and security of their services utilizing an approach—tailored as appropriate to account for broadband's unique aspects—that has produced significant benefits with respect to legacy networks and services.
126. The legal bases for the rule changes proposed in this FNPRM are contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 222, 251(e)(3), 254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1, and 615c, 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j) & (o), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 222, 251(e)(3), 254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1, and 615c, 1302(a) and 1302(b).
127. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” the same as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA), Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632.
128. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards. First, nationwide, there are a total of approximately 28.2 million small businesses, according to the SBA. In addition, a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1, 621,315 small organizations. Finally, the term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a
129. The 2007 Economic Census places Internet Service Providers, the services of which might include Voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), in either of two categories, depending on whether the service is provided over the provider's own telecommunications facilities (
130. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services, providers of interexchange services, or operator service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” In the document,
131. To the extent the wireless services listed below are used by wireless firms for fixed and mobile broadband Internet access services, the
132. Two economic census categories address the satellite industry. The first category has a small business size standard of $32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. The category of Satellite Telecommunications category comprises firms “primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” The second category has a size standard of $32.5 million or less in annual receipts. The second category,
133. Because Section 706 requires us to monitor the deployment of broadband regardless of technology or transmission media employed, we know that some broadband service providers do not provide voice telephony service. Accordingly, we describe below other types of firms that may provide broadband services, including cable companies, MDS providers, and utilities, among others. Wired Telecommunications Carriers comprise of establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on
134. The rules proposed in the FNPRM would require broadband Internet access providers and dedicated service providers as well as interconnected VoIP providers, to report outages or disruptions to communications according to specified metrics and thresholds, of at least 30 minutes. These providers as proposed, would need to specify when the outage is related unintended changes to or failures of software or firmware, unintended modifications to databases, or attributed to a critical network element. Reporting requirements would align the reporting process and timing with that of legacy reporting currently required in the part 4 rules.
135. Further, the rules proposed in the FNPRM would require interconnected VoIP service providers to submit Initial Reports, in addition to the Notifications and Final Reports currently required. These reporting requirements would align the reporting process and timing with that of legacy reporting currently required in the part 4 rules.
136. Moreover, the rules proposed in the FNPRM would require wireless and wireline providers to report outages that exceed proposed specified technical thresholds in the wireless radio access network and the wireline local access network respectively. The rules proposed in the FNPRM would also require wireless providers serving rural areas to file outage reports whenever one-third or more of its macro cell sites serving that area are disabled such that communications services cannot be handled through those sites, or are substantially impaired due to the outage(s) or other disruptions affecting those sites.
137. Under the Commission's current outage reporting rules, which apply only to legacy circuit-switched voice and/or paging communications over wireline, wireless, cable, and satellite communications services and interconnected VoIP, about 11,000 outage reports per year from all reporting sources combined are filed with the Commission. As a result of the rules proposed, we anticipate that fewer than 2,000 additional outage reports will be filed annually. Hence, we estimate that if the proposed rules are adopted, the total number of reports from all outage reporting sources filed, pursuant to the current and proposed rules, combined would be fewer than 13,000 annually. We note that, occasionally, the proposed outage reporting requirements could require the use of professional skills, including legal and engineering expertise. As a consequence, we believe that in the usual case, the only burden associated with the proposed reporting requirements contained in this FNPRM would be the time required to complete the initial and final reports. We anticipate that electronic filing, through the type of template that we are proposing (similar to the type that other service providers currently subject to outage reporting requirements are employing) should minimize the amount of time and effort that will be required to comply with the rules that we propose in this proceeding.
138. The FNPRM's proposal to require outage reporting would be useful in refining voluntary best practices and in developing new ones. In each case for the reporting thresholds proposed, we have chosen specific circumstances, applicable to the specific service that, in our view, warrant reporting as a significant outage, leading to FCC analysis and, possibly, the application of existing best practices or the development and refinement of best practices in the future. There may be additional thresholds that should also be included to improve the process of developing and improving best practices. We encourage interested parties to address these issues in the context of the applicable technologies and to develop their comments in the context of ways in which the proposed information collection would facilitate best practices development and increased communications security, reliability and resiliency throughout the United States and its Territories.
139. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include (among others) the following four alternatives: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
140. Over the past decade, the proportion of communications services provided over a broadband platform has increased dramatically, and the U.S. increasingly relies on broadband-based services not only for day-to-day consumer use but also for Homeland Defense and National Security. Over the past three years, the number of outages reported each year has remained relatively steady at about 11,000. We believe that the proposed outage reporting requirements are the minimum necessary to assure that we receive adequate information to perform our statutory responsibilities with respect to 911 services and ensure the reliability of communications and critical infrastructures. Also, we believe that the magnitude of the outages
141. The proposed rules in the FNPRM are generally consistent with current industry practices, so the costs of compliance should be small. For a number of reasons, we believe that the costs of the reporting rules that we propose in the FNPRM are outweighed by the expected benefits (
142. We ask parties to include comments on possible alternatives that could satisfy the aims of the proceeding in cost-effective ways that do not overly burden providers, and we also seek comment on appropriate legal authority(ies) for the proposals under consideration. Moreover, we also seek comments on the relative costs and benefits associated with the proposed rules. We ask commenters to address particularly the following concerns: What are the costs, burdens, and benefits associated with any proposed rule? Entities, especially small businesses and small entities, more generally, are encouraged to quantify the costs and benefits of the proposed reporting requirements. How could any proposed rule be tailored to impose the least cost and the least amount of burden on those affected? What potential regulatory approaches would maximize the potential benefits to society? To the extent feasible, what explicit performance objectives should the Commission specify? How can the Commission best identify alternatives to regulation, including fees, permits, or other non-regulatory approaches?
143. Further, comments are sought on all aspects of this proposal, including the proposed extension of such requirements, the definitions and proposed reporting thresholds, and the proposed reporting process that would follow essentially the same approach that currently applies to outage reporting on legacy networks and services. We ask that commenters address whether the proposed rules would satisfy the Commission's intended aims, described herein, and would promote the reliability, resiliency and security of interconnected VoIP, broadband Internet access, and dedicated services. We also ask for comments on our tentative conclusions that: Expanding part 4 outage reporting requirements currently applicable to interconnected VoIP service providers, and extending part 4 reporting to BIAS providers and dedicated service providers, (i) would allow the Commission to analyze outage trends related to those services; (ii) would provide an important tool for network operators to use in preventing future outages; and (iii) would help to enhance and ensure the resiliency and reliability of critical communications networks and services.
144. In sum, we welcome comments on: The proposed rules themselves; whether they would achieve their intended objectives; whether there are performance objectives not mentioned that we should address; whether better alternatives exist that would accomplish the proceeding's objectives; the legal premises for the actions contemplated; and the costs, burdens and benefits of our proposal.
145. None.
Airports, Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Disruptions to communications, Network outages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 4 as follows:
Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o), 251(e)(3), 254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1, and 615c of Pub. L. 73-416, 48 Stat. 1064, as amended, and section 706 of Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j) & (o), 251(e)(3), 254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1, 615c, and 1302, unless otherwise noted.
(i)
(j)
(e) * * *
(2) The mathematical result of multiplying the duration of an outage, expressed in minutes, by the number of end-users potentially affected by the
(g)
(h)
(i)
(g)
(ii) Within 120 minutes of discovering that they have experienced on any facilities that they own, operate, lease, or otherwise utilize, an outage of at least 30 minutes duration that:
(A) Potentially affects at least 900,000 user minutes of Interconnected VoIP service and results in complete loss of service;
(B) Potentially affects 22,500 Gbps user minutes; or
(C) Potentially affects any special offices and facilities (in accordance with paragraphs (a) through (d) of § 4.5).
(2) Not later than 72 hours after discovering the outage, the provider shall submit electronically an Initial Communications Outage Report to the Commission. Not later than 30 days after discovering the outage, the provider shall submit electronically a Final Communications Outage Report to the Commission. The Notification and the Initial and Final reports shall comply with the requirements of § 4.11.
(i)
(A) Potentially affects at least 22,500 Gbps user minutes;
(B) Potentially affects any special offices and facilities (in accordance with paragraphs (a) through (d) of § 4.5); or
(C) Potentially affects a 911 special facility (as defined in (e) of § 4.5).
(2) Not later than 72 hours after discovering the outage, BIAS providers and Dedicated Service providers, as defined in § 4.3, shall submit electronically an Initial Communications Outage Report to the Commission. Not later than 30 days after discovering the outage, the broadband Internet access service provider shall submit electronically a Final Communications Outage Report to the Commission. The Notification and the Initial and Final reports shall comply with the requirements of § 4.11.
Department of the Treasury.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would amend the Department of Treasury Acquisition Regulation (DTAR) for the purposes of providing acquisition policy for incremental funding of Fixed-Price, Time-and-Material or Labor-Hour contracts during a continuing resolution.
Treasury invites comments on the topics addressed in this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted to Treasury by any of the following methods: by submitting electronic comments through the federal government e-rulemaking portal,
In general, Treasury will post all comments to
Thomas O'Linn, Procurement Analyst, Office of the Procurement Executive, at (202) 622-2092.
The DTAR, which supplements the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), is codified at 48 CFR Chapter 10.
The Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C 1341 and the FAR section 32.702, state that no officer or employee of the government may create or authorize an obligation in excess of the funds available, or in advance of appropriations unless otherwise authorized by law. A continuing resolution (CR) provides funding for continuing projects or activities that were conducted in the prior fiscal year for which appropriations, funds, or other authority was previously made available.
Each CR is governed by its specific terms. However, amounts available under a CR are frequently insufficient to fully fund contract actions that may be required during its term. No existing contract clause permits partial funding of a contract action awarded during a CR. While other strategies are available to address the need to take contract actions during a CR, these strategies—for example short-term awards—are inefficient and may have other disadvantages.
This proposal would establish policies and procedures in order to facilitate successful, timely, and economical execution of Treasury contractual actions during a CR. Specifically, this proposed rule would set forth procedures for using incremental funding for fixed-price, time-and-material and labor-hour contracts during a period in which funds are provided to Treasury Departmental Offices or Bureaus under a CR. Heads of contracting activities may develop necessary supplemental internal procedures as well as guidance to advise potential offerors, offerors and contractors of these policies and procedures.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in section
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) generally requires agencies to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and a final regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. It is hereby certified that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule is intended to make changes to the DTAR that would allow for improvements in continuity when Treasury funding is operating under a CR and should not have significant economic impacts on small entities. Notwithstanding this certification, the Department welcomes comments on the potential impact on small entities.
Government procurement.
Accordingly, the Department of the Treasury proposes to amend 48 CFR Chapter 10 as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1707.
This section provides policy and procedure for using incremental funding for fixed-price, time-and-material and labor-hour contracts during a period in which funds are provided to Treasury Departmental Offices or Bureaus, under a continuing resolution (CR). HCAs may develop necessary supplemental internal procedures as well as guidance to advise potential offerors, offerors and contractors of these policies and procedures. Additionally, Bureaus who receive non-appropriated funds may utilize and tailor these policies and procedures to fit their needs.
“Continuing Resolution” means an appropriation, in the form of a joint resolution, that provides budget authority for federal agencies, specific activities, or both to continue operation until the regular appropriations are enacted. Typically, a continuing resolution is used when legislative action on appropriations is not completed by the beginning of a fiscal year.
The Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C 1341 and FAR 32.702, states that no officer or employee of the Government may create or authorize an obligation in excess of the funds available, or in advance of appropriations unless otherwise authorized by law. A CR provides funding for continuing projects or activities that were conducted in the prior fiscal year for which appropriations, funds, or other authority was previously made available. Each CR is governed by the specific terms in that specific CR (
(a) A fixed-price, time-and-materials or labor-hour contract or order for commercial or non-commercial supplies or severable or non-severable services may be incrementally funded when—
(1) Funds are provided to a Treasury Departmental Office or Bureau under a CR. This includes funds appropriated to a bureau, funds appropriated to another entity that will be directly obligated on a Treasury contract, and funds in a revolving fund or similar account that will be reimbursed by a customer agency funded by a CR;
(2) Sufficient funds are not being allocated from the responsible fiscal authority to fully fund the contract action that is otherwise authorized to be issued;
(3) There is no statutory restriction that would preclude the proposed use of funds;
(4) Funds are available and unexpired, as of the date the funds are obligated;
(5) Assurance is provided by the responsible financial authority that full funding is anticipated once an Appropriation Act is enacted; and
(6) The clause prescribed by 1032.770-7 is incorporated into the contract or order.
(b) Incremental funding may be limited to individual line item(s) or a particular order(s).
(a) This policy does not apply to contract actions that are not covered by the CR.
(b) If this policy is applied to non-severable services or to supplies, the contracting officer shall take into consideration the business risk to the Government if funding does not become available to fully fund the contract. If the contracting officer determines the use of incremental funding for non-severable services or supplies is in the best interest of the Government the contracting officer shall ensure the contractor fully understands how the limitations of the Government's liabilities under the contract might impact its ability to perform within the prescribed contract schedule.
(a) An incrementally funded fixed-price, time-and-materials or labor-hour contract shall be fully funded once funds are available.
(b) The contracting officer shall ensure that sufficient funds are allotted to the contract to cover the total amount payable to the contractor in the event of termination of convenience by the Government.
(c) Upon receipt of the contractor's notice under paragraph (c) of the clause at 1052.232-90, Limitation of Government's Obligation, the contracting officer shall promptly provide written notice to the contractor that the Government is—
(i) Obligating additional funds for continued performance and increasing the Government's limitation of obligation in a specified amount;
(ii) Obligating the full amount of funds needed;
(iii) Terminating for convenience, as applicable, the affected line items or contract; or
(iv) Considering whether to allot additional funds; and
(A) The contractor is entitled by the contract terms to stop work when the Government's limitation of obligation is reached; and
(B) Any costs expended beyond the Government's limitation of obligation are at the contractor's risk.
(d) Upon learning that the contract will receive no further funds by the date provided in the notice under paragraph (c) of the clause at 1052.232-70, Limitation of Government's Obligation,
The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1052.232-70, Limitation of Government's Obligation, in
(a) Solicitations and resultant contracts when incremental funding of fixed-price, time-and-material or labor-hour contract via a CR is anticipated; or
(b) Contracts or orders when incremental funding of a fixed-price, time-and-material or labor-hour contract is authorized and the Treasury Departmental Office or Bureau is operating under a CR (see 1032.770-4); and
(c) The CO shall insert the information required in paragraph (a) and (c) of the clause.
41 U.S.C. 1707.
As prescribed in 1032.770-7, insert the following clause. Contracting officers are authorized, in appropriate cases, to revise paragraph (a) of this clause to specify the work required under the contract, in lieu of using contract line item numbers as well as revise paragraph (c) of this paragraph to specify a different notification period and percentage. The 30-day period may be varied from 45, 60 to 90 days, and the 75 percent from 75 to 85 percent:
(a) Funding is not currently available to fully fund this contract due to the Government operating under a continuing resolution (CR). The item(s) listed in the table below are being incrementally funded as described below. The funding allotted to these item(s) is presently available for payment and allotted to this contract. This table will be updated by a modification to the contract when additional funds are made available, if any, to this contract.
(b) For the incrementally funded item(s) identified in paragraph (a) of this clause, the Contractor agrees to perform up to the point at which the total amount payable by the government, including any invoice payments to which the contractor is entitled and reimbursement of authorized termination costs in the event of termination of those item(s) for the Government's convenience, does not exceed the total amount currently obligated to those item(s). The Contractor is not authorized to continue work on these item(s) beyond that point. The Government will not be obligated in any event to reimburse the contractor in excess of the amount allotted to the line items of the contract regardless of anything to the contrary in any other clause, including but not limited to the clause entitled “Termination for Convenience of the Government” or paragraph (1) entitled “Termination for the Government's Convenience” of the clause at FAR 52.212-4, “Commercial Terms and Conditions—Commercial Items.”
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (h) of this clause, the Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer in writing at least thirty days prior to the date when, in the Contractor's best judgment, the work will reach the point at which the total amount payable by the Government, including any cost for termination for convenience, will approximate 85 percent of the total amount then allotted to the contract for performance of the item(s) identified in paragraph (a) of this clause. The notification shall state the estimated date when that point will be reached and an estimate of additional funding, if any, needed to continue performance. The notification shall also advise the Contracting Officer of the estimated amount of additional funds required for the timely performance of the item(s) funded pursuant to this contract. If after such notification additional funds are not allotted by the date identified in the Contractor's notification, or by an agreed upon substitute date, the Contracting Officer will terminate any item(s) for which additional funds have not been allotted, pursuant to the terms of this contract authorizing termination for the convenience of the Government. Failure to make the notification required by this paragraph, whether for reasons within or beyond the contractor's control, will not increase the maximum amount payable to the contractor under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this clause.
(d) The Government may at any time prior to termination allot additional funds for the performance of the item(s) identified in paragraph (a) of this clause.
(e) The termination provisions of paragraphs (a) through (h) of this clause do not limit the rights of the Government under the clause entitled “Default” or “Termination for Cause.” The provisions of this clause are limited to the work and allotment of funds for the item(s) set forth in paragraph (a) of this clause. This clause no longer applies once the contract is fully funded.
(f) Nothing in this clause affects the right of the Government to terminate this contract pursuant to the Government's termination for convenience terms set forth in this contract.
(g) Nothing in this clause shall be construed as authorization of voluntary services whose acceptance is otherwise prohibited under 31 U.S.C. 1342.
(h) The parties contemplate that the Government will allot funds to this contract from time to time as the need arises and as funds become available. There is no fixed schedule for providing additional funds.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of renewal.
We are giving notice that the Secretary of Agriculture has renewed the charter of the General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (Committee) for a 2-year period. The Secretary of Agriculture has determined that the Committee is necessary and in the public interest.
Dr. Denise L. Brinson, Senior Coordinator, National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS, APHIS, USDA, 1506 Klondike Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094; (770) 922-3496.
The purpose of the General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (Committee) is to maintain and ensure industry involvement in Federal administration of matters pertaining to poultry health.
The Committee Chairperson and the Vice Chairperson shall be elected by the Committee from among its members. There are seven members on the Committee. The poultry industry elects the members of the Committee. The members represent six geographic areas with one member-at-large.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability.
We are advising the public that proposed changes to the National Poultry Improvement Plan Program Standards are available for review and comment.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 11, 2016.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
The proposed standards and any comments we receive may be viewed at
Dr. Denise Brinson, DVM, Senior Coordinator, National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS, APHIS, USDA, 1506 Klondike Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094-5104; (770) 922-3496.
The National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP), also referred to below as “the Plan,” is a cooperative Federal-State-Industry mechanism for controlling certain poultry diseases. The Plan consists of a variety of programs intended to prevent and control poultry diseases. Participation in all Plan programs is voluntary, but breeding flocks, hatcheries, and dealers must first qualify as “U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean” as a condition for participating in the other Plan programs.
The Plan identifies States, flocks, hatcheries, dealers, and slaughter plants that meet certain disease control standards specified in the Plan's various programs. As a result, customers can buy poultry that has tested clean of certain diseases or that has been produced under disease-prevention conditions.
The regulations in 9 CFR parts 56, 145, 146, and 147 (referred to below as the regulations) contain the provisions of the Plan. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) amends these provisions from time to time to incorporate new scientific information and technologies within the Plan.
In the past, APHIS has updated the regulations once every 2 years, following the Biennial Plan Conference of the NPIP General Conference Committee. The NPIP General Conference Committee advises the Secretary on poultry health and represents cooperating State agencies and poultry industry members. During its meetings and Biennial Conferences, the Committee discusses significant poultry health issues and makes recommendations to improve the NPIP.
However, while changes in diagnostic science, testing technology, and best practices for maintaining sanitation are continual, the rulemaking process can be lengthy. As a result, the regulations have, at times, become outdated. To remedy this problem, we determined that we needed a more flexible process for amending provisions of the Plan. On July 9, 2014, we published in the
The Committee recently voted to amend the Program Standards by creating provisions for compartmentalization of primary breeding poultry establishments and approval of compartment components such as farms, feedmills, hatcheries, and egg depots. The urgency of adding such provisions to the Program Standards was reinforced by the devastating highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) outbreak of 2014-2015, which highlighted the enormous impact trade restrictions can have on distributing breeding stock to customers around the globe.
The regulations at 9 CFR 145.45, 145.74, and 145.84 provide the basis for compartmentalization of poultry primary breeding companies. Compartmentalization is a procedure that a country may implement to define and manage animal subpopulations of distinct health status and common biosecurity program within its territory, in accordance with the guidelines in the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) Terrestrial Animal Health Code, for the purpose of disease control and international trade. Compartmentalization is distinct from regionalization, which involves recognition of geographical zones of a country that can be identified and characterized by their level of risk for different diseases, but the two are not mutually exclusive. When regionalization is not feasible, APHIS may seek to preserve trade with key countries in the face of outbreaks of HPAI and other diseases through compartmentalization. Compartmentalization may also enable continued interstate movement of breeding stock to domestic customers and operations if future low pathogenic avian influenza and/or HPAI outbreaks occur.
We are advising the public that we have prepared updates to the NPIP Program Standards document. The proposed updates would amend the Program Standards by adding provisions for compartmentalization of primary breeding poultry establishments and approval of compartment components such as farms, feedmills, hatcheries, and egg depots, as recommended by the General Conference Committee. Included in the proposed additions are requirements for applying for compartmentalization of facilities and for facility design and management, as well as an outline of the auditing system APHIS will use to evaluate compartments and their component operations.
After reviewing any comments we receive on the proposed updates, we will publish a second notice in the
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to revise the Santa Fe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and to prepare an associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); correction.
The Forest Service is correcting the comment due date in a document that published in the
Jennifer Cramer, Forest Planner, Santa Fe National Forest, 11 Forest Lane, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87508. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
In the
Comments concerning the Needs for Change and Proposed Action provided in this notice will be most useful in the development of the revised forest plan and draft EIS if received by August 17, 2016. The agency expects to release a draft revised forest plan and draft EIS by summer, 2017 and a final revised forest plan and final EIS by fall, 2018.
16 U.S.C. 1600-1614; 36 CFR part 219 [77 FR 21260-21273].
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Southern Arizona Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Tucson, Arizona. 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 26, 2016 at 9:00 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 2646 E. Commerce Center Place, Tucson, AZ 85706, Tucson Interagency Fire Center, Ocotillo Room.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Veronica Van Hulle, RAC Coordinator by phone at 520-388-8424 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request, in writing, by August 5, 2016 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Veronica Van Hulle, RAC Coordinator, 300 W. Congress Street, 6th Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701; by email to
The KOM Foreign Trade Zone Authority, grantee of FTZ 189, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Southern Lithoplate, Inc. (SLP), located in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on July 6, 2016.
SLP already has authority for the production of aluminum offset printing plates for the printing industry within Site 10 of FTZ 189. The current request would add foreign status materials/components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt SLP from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production. On its domestic sales, SLP would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to aluminum printing plates (duty rate 3.7%) for the foreign-status materials/components noted below and in the existing scope of authority. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The materials/components sourced from abroad include the following chemicals for photographic purposes: organic dyes; photoinitiators; photosensitizing dyes; polymers; triazine photoinitiators; pigments in solvent; acrylate polymers in solvent; novolak polymers in solvent; anion surfactants; emulsifiers in water; acrylate monomers; acrylic polymers; polyvinyl alcohols; acrylate oligomers in solvent; emulsifiers; polyvinylphenol; and, carboxymethyl cellulose (duty rate ranges from free to 6.5%). The request indicates that inputs classified under HTSUS Subheadings 3204.17, 3208.20 and 3208.90 will be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41) or domestic status (19 CFR 146.43), thereby precluding inverted tariff benefits on such items.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is August 22, 2016.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at
On March 8, 2016, the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company, grantee of FTZ 7, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Lilly Del Caribe, Inc. (Lilly), located within Subzone 7K in Carolina and Guayama, Puerto Rico.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to a request from the petitioner,
Effective July 12, 2016.
Jennifer Shore or Peter Zukowski, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2778 or (202) 482-0189, respectively.
As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to a closure of the Federal Government. As a result, the revised deadline for the preliminary results of this review was March 7, 2016.
The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order is certain small diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe (under 4
In accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we relied on facts available with an adverse inference with respect to NSSMC, the sole company selected for individual examination in this review, and we preliminarily assign to it a dumping margin of 106.07 percent. In making these findings, we relied on facts available because NSSMC failed to respond to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire, and thus withheld requested information, failed to provide requested information by the established deadlines, and significantly impeded this proceeding.
Additionally, as indicated in the “Preliminary Results of Review” section below, we preliminarily determine that a margin of 106.07 percent applies to the three firms not selected for individual review. For further information,
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
Based on our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) information and information provided by NKK, we preliminarily determine that NKK had no shipments of the subject merchandise, and, therefore, no reviewable transactions, during the POR. For a full discussion of this determination,
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins on certain small diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe (under 4
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs.
The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. If the preliminary results are unchanged for the final results we will instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 106.07 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were produced and/or exported by NSSMC, and an ad valorem assessment rate of 106.07 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were produced and/or exported by the three aforementioned companies which were not selected for individual examination.
We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of certain small diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe (under 4
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to a request from the petitioner,
Effective July 12, 2016.
Jennifer Shore or Peter Zukowski, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2778 or (202) 482-0189, respectively.
As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to a closure of the Federal Government. As a result, the revised deadline for the preliminary results of this review was March 7, 2016.
The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order is certain large diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe (over 4
In accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we relied on facts available with an adverse inference with respect to NSSMC, the sole company selected for individual examination in this review, and we preliminarily assign to it a dumping margin of 107.80 percent. In making these findings, we relied on facts available because NSSMC failed to respond to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire, and thus withheld requested information, failed to provide requested information by the established deadlines, and significantly impeded this proceeding.
Additionally, as indicated in the “Preliminary Results of Review” section below, we preliminarily determine that a margin of 107.8 percent applies to the three firms not selected for individual review. For further information,
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
Based on our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) information and information provided by NKK, we preliminarily determine that NKK had no shipments of the subject merchandise, and, therefore, no reviewable transactions, during the POR. For a full discussion of this determination,
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins on certain large diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe (over 4
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs.
The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. If the preliminary results are unchanged for the final results we will instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 107.80 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were produced and/or exported by NSSMC, and an ad valorem assessment rate of 107.80 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were produced and/or exported by the three aforementioned companies which were not selected for individual examination.
We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of certain large diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe (over 4
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) in their five year (sunset) reviews that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain tissue paper products (tissue paper) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation of the AD order on tissue paper from the PRC.
Effective July 12, 2016.
Brian Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1766.
On March 30, 2005, the Department published the AD order on tissue paper from the PRC.
On July 5, 2016, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, that revocation of the AD order on tissue paper from the PRC would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
The tissue paper products covered by the order are cut-to-length sheets of tissue paper having a basis weight not exceeding 29 grams per square meter. Tissue paper products subject to this order may or may not be bleached, dye-colored, surface-colored, glazed, surface decorated or printed, sequined, crinkled, embossed, and/or die cut. The tissue paper subject to this order is in the form of cut-to-length sheets of tissue paper with a width equal to or greater than one-half (0.5) inch. Subject tissue paper may be flat or folded, and may be packaged by banding or wrapping with paper or film, by placing in plastic or film bags, and/or by placing in boxes for distribution and use by the ultimate consumer. Packages of tissue paper subject to this order may consist solely of tissue paper of one color and/or style, or may contain multiple colors and/or styles.
The merchandise subject to this order does not have specific classification numbers assigned to them under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Subject merchandise may be under one or more of several different subheadings, including: 4802.30, 4802.54, 4802.61, 4802.62, 4802.69, 4804.31.1000, 4804.31.2000, 4804.31.4020, 4804.31.4040, 4804.31.6000, 4804.39, 4805.91.1090, 4805.91.5000, 4805.91.7000, 4806.40, 4808.30, 4808.90, 4811.90, 4823.90, 4802.50.00, 4802.90.00, 4805.91.90, 9505.90.40. The tariff classifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Excluded from the scope of this order are the following tissue paper products: (1) Tissue paper products that are coated in wax, paraffin, or polymers, of a kind used in floral and food service applications; (2) tissue paper products that have been perforated, embossed, or die-cut to the shape of a toilet seat,
As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the AD order on tissue paper from the PRC would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, and of material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD order on tissue paper from the PRC. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of the order will be the date of publication in the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO which may be subject to sanctions.
This five-year (sunset) review and notice are in accordance with section 751(c) and published pursuant to 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the
Effective July 12, 2016.
Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3964.
The products covered by the order are chlorinated isos, which are derivatives of cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones.
The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export and Constructed Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is a non-market economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period of June 1, 2014 through May 31, 2015:
The Department intends to disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of all issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
Upon issuing the final results of this review, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we are calculating importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates for the merchandise subject to this review. For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is above
For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by an exporter individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. Additionally, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice.
The 101st Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) will be held in Denver, Colorado, from Sunday, July 24, 2016, through Thursday, July 28, 2016. This notice contains information about significant items on the NCWM Committee agendas but does not include all agenda items. As a result, the items are not consecutively numbered.
The meeting will be held on Sunday, July 24, 2016, through Wednesday, July 27, 2016, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time, and on Thursday, July 28, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Mountain Time. The meeting schedule is available at
This meeting will be held at the Grand Hyatt Denver, 1750 Welton Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-3999.
Mr. Kenneth Butcher, NIST, Office of Weights and Measures, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600. You may also contact Mr. Butcher at (301) 975-4859 or by email at
Publication of this notice on the NCWM's behalf is undertaken as a public service; NIST does not endorse, approve, or recommend any of the proposals or other information contained in this notice or in publications produced by the NCWM.
The NCWM is an organization of weights and measures officials of the states, counties, and cities of the United States, and representatives from the private sector and federal agencies. These meetings bring together government officials and representatives of business, industry, trade associations, and consumer organizations on subjects related to the field of weights and measures technology, administration, and enforcement. NIST participates to encourage cooperation between federal agencies and the states in the development of legal metrology requirements. NIST also promotes uniformity state laws, regulations, and testing procedures used in the regulatory control of commercial weighing and measuring devices, packaged goods, and for other trade and commerce issues.
The following are brief descriptions of some of the significant agenda items that will be considered at the NCWM Annual Meeting. Comments will be taken on these and other issues during public comment sessions. This meeting also includes work sessions in which the Committees may also accept comments, and where they will finalize recommendations for possible adoption at this meeting. The Committees may also withdraw or carryover items that need additional development.
These notices are intended to make interested parties aware of these development projects and to make them aware that reports on the status of the project will be given at the Annual Meeting. The notices are also presented to invite the participation of manufacturers, experts, consumers,
The Specifications and Tolerances Committee (S&T Committee) will consider proposed amendments to NIST Handbook 44, “Specifications, Tolerances, and other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices.” Those items address weighing and measuring devices used in commercial applications, that is, devices used to buy from or sell to the public or used for determining the quantity of products or services sold among businesses. Issues on the agenda of the NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee (L&R Committee) relate to proposals to amend NIST Handbook 130, “Uniform Laws and Regulations in the area of Legal Metrology and Engine Fuel Quality” and NIST Handbook 133, “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods.”
The following items are proposals to amend NIST Handbook 44:
The current testing procedures specified in the Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems (ABWS) Code are intended to be performed statically using field standard test weights or a combination of test weights and material substituted for test weights. Nowhere within the ABWS Code is it mentioned that a material test should be performed with the system in normal operational mode using material of known quantity as a reference standard. At the January 2016 NCWM Interim Meeting, the S&T Committee agreed to present for vote, at the upcoming Meeting, a proposal that makes optional (
In February 2016, the NCWM formed a new task group to consider a proposal to expand the tentative code for Weigh-In-Motion Systems Used for Vehicle Enforcement Screening in NIST Handbook 44 to include commercial and law enforcement applications. This proposed amendment is a “Developing Item” on the S&T Committee's 2016 agenda and will
The purpose of this notice is to make users and other stakeholders aware of the proposal to expand the scope of the existing code and the formation of the task group. The task group includes representatives of equipment manufacturers, the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, truck weight enforcement agencies, state weights and measures offices, and others. For more information on this task group contact Mr. Richard Harshman, NIST Technical Advisor at (301) 975-8107 or
Retail motor-fuel dispensers used to dispense refined fuels such as gasoline and diesel are regulated under the Liquid-Measuring Devices (LMD) Code in NIST Handbook 44. The LMD Code has been repeatedly revised over the past 20 years to reflect changes in technology and marketing practices surrounding the sale of these fuels; however, corresponding changes have not always been made to the LPG and Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices code. The proposed changes under this item are designed to align the LPG and Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices code with the LMD code and help promote uniformity in device requirements and practices and ensure fair competition between competing businesses.
In 1994 both liter and gallon “equivalents” for gasoline were established by the NCWM to provide a means for consumers to make value and fuel economy comparisons between compressed natural gas (CNG) and gasoline, and to promote broader acceptance and use of CNG as a vehicle fuel. These “equivalents” are based on a specific weight (mass) per volume, called the gasoline liter equivalent (GLE) and gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE), and are calculated using an estimate of the “average” equivalent energy content—a number provided by industry. For several years, the NCWM Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) and Laws and Regulations (L&R) Committees have deliberated on proposals to establish and/or revise requirements for the method of sale and commercial measurement of LNG and CNG. The purpose of this item is to define acceptable units of measurement and identify requirements for equipment used to commercially measure these products.
Also L&R Items 232-8, NIST Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulations and Item 237-1, NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Engine Fuels and Automotive Lubricants Regulation are similar proposals being considered on this issue.
The NIST Handbook 44, Hydrogen-Gas Measuring Devices code was added to NIST Handbook 44 in 2010 as a “Tentative Code.” As is often the case with a tentative code, it is expected that adjustments will need to be made to the code prior to changing its status to “permanent” as experience is gained by industry and regulatory offices on the operation, testing, and use of the devices covered by that code.
The tolerances currently specified in the NIST Handbook 44, Hydrogen-Gas Measuring Devices code are ± 1.5% for Acceptance Tolerance and ± 2.0% for Maintenance Tolerance. According to the submitter of this proposal, no hydrogen-gas dispenser manufacturers can meet the tolerances currently specified in the tentative code. This item proposes establishing multiple accuracy classes in which Acceptance Tolerances would range from ± 1.5% to ± 5.0% and Maintenance Tolerances would range from ± 2.0% to ± 10.0%. The proposal places limits on the installation of certain accuracy classes after specified dates. After January 1, 2020, newly installed devices will be required to meet the current, more stringent tolerances; however, larger tolerances may continue to apply to devices installed prior to that date. This proposal would also permit devices of different accuracies to be used in the same application.
For several years, the NIST USNWG on Taximeters has discussed possible approaches for amending the NIST Handbook 44, Taximeters Code to specifically recognize GPS-based time and distance measuring systems that are used to assess charges for transportation services such as taxicabs and limousines. Appropriate specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements for these devices must be developed for manufacturers and users of these devices, as well for weights and measures officials. Such requirements help ensure accuracy and transparency for customers and a level playing field for transportation service companies, enabling consumers to make value comparisons between competing services. In the fall of 2015, the California Division of Measurement Standards submitted a proposal through multiple regional weights and measures associations to establish a separate NIST Handbook 44 code to address “Transportation Network Services.” The S&T Committee will examine these proposals and the result of recent discussions from a November 2015 USNWG meeting to assess how to best address these systems.
The following items are proposals to amend NIST Handbook 130 or NIST Handbook 133:
The L&R Committee will consider a proposal to recommend adoption of a uniform method of sale for animal bedding that will enhance the ability of consumers to make value comparisons and will ensure fair competition. Animal Bedding is generally defined as any material, except for baled straw, that is kept, offered or exposed for sale or sold to retail consumers for primary use as a medium for any pet or companion or livestock animal to nest or eliminate waste. If adopted, the proposal will require packers to advertise and sell packages of animal bedding on the basis of the expanded volume of the bedding. Most packages of animal bedding are compressed during packaging and the expanded volume is the amount of product that consumers will recover through unwrapping and decompressing the bedding according to the instructions provided by the packer. See also Item 260-5, Section 3.15. Test Procedure for Verifying the Usable Volume Declaration on Packages of Animal Bedding.
The current test procedure in NIST Handbook 133, Section 3.14., Firewood—(Volumetric Test Procedure for Packaged Firewood with a Labeled Volume of 113 L [4ft
15 U.S.C. 272(b).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) invites and requests nomination of individuals for appointment to the National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction (Committee). This is a new Federal Advisory Committee established pursuant to the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act Reauthorization of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-52). NIST will consider nominations received in response to this notice for appointment to the Committee.
Please submit nominations on or before Friday, August 19, 2016.
Please submit nominations to Tina Faecke, Administrative Officer, National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8630, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8630. Nominations may also be submitted via FAX to 301-975-5433 or email at
Additional information regarding the Committee, including its charter, may be found on the NWIRP electronic home page at:
Dr. Marc Levitan, Acting Director, National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8611, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8611, telephone 301-975-5340, fax 301-975-5433; or via email at
1. The Committee will assess trends and developments in the natural, engineering, and social sciences and practices of windstorm impact mitigation, priorities of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program's (Program) Strategic Plan, coordination of the Program, effectiveness of the Program in meeting its purposes under section 204 (42 U.S.C. 15703) of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004, as amended, (Pub. L. 114-52); and, any revisions to the Program which may be necessary.
2. The Committee functions solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
3. The Committee shall report to the Director of NIST.
4. At least once every two years, the Committee shall report to the Director of
1. The Committee will consist of not fewer than 7 nor more than 15 members. Members shall be selected on the basis of established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of issues affecting the Program. Members shall reflect the wide diversity of technical disciplines, competencies, and communities involved in windstorm impact reduction. Members who are qualified to provide advice on windstorm impact reduction and represent related scientific, architectural, and engineering disciplines, will be drawn from communities having an interest in the Program, including, but not limited to, representatives of research and academic institutions, industry standards development organizations, emergency management agencies, State and local government, and business communities including the insurance industry.
2. The Director of NIST shall appoint the members of the Committee, and they will be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.
3. No committee member may be an “employee” as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (F) of section 7342(a)(1) of title 5 of the United States Code.
1. Members of the Committee will not be compensated for their services, but may, upon request, be allowed travel and per diem expenses in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5701
2. Members of the Committee shall serve as Special Government Employees and are required to file an annual Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Report.
3. The Committee shall meet at least once per year. Additional meetings may be called whenever the Director of NIST or the Committee Chair requests a meeting.
4. The Committee shall terminate on September 30, 2017.
1. Nominations are sought from industry and other communities having an interest in the Program, such as, but not limited to, research and academic institutions, industry standards development organizations, emergency management agencies, state and local government, and business communities, including the insurance industry, who are qualified to provide advice on windstorm impact mitigation and represent related scientific, architectural, and engineering disciplines.
2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service. The field of expertise that the candidate represents should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular field should come from organizations or individuals within that field. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the Committee, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Committee.
3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Committee membership.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 12, 2016.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Patsy A. Bearden, (907) 586-7008 or
This request is for extension of a current information collection.
The Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program is an economic development program associated with federally managed fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI). The CDQ Program receives apportionments of the annual catch limits for a variety of commercially valuable species in the BSAI, which are in turn allocated among six different non-profit managing organizations representing different affiliations of communities (CDQ groups). The CDQ Program redistributes a portion of commercially important BSAI fisheries species to adjacent communities. There are 65 communities participating in the program. CDQ groups use the revenue derived from the harvest of their fisheries allocations as a basis both for funding economic development activities and for providing employment opportunities. Thus, the successful harvest of CDQ Program allocations is integral to achieving the goals of the program.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone off Alaska. NMFS manages the groundfish and crab fisheries of the BSAI under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (FMPs). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council prepared the FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
By fax, by mail, and online.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is requesting to renew the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information collection titled, “Consumer Advisory Boards, Groups and Committees.”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before August 11, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:
•
•
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
The Bureau issued a 60-day
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. Sec. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its proposed renewal of application instructions for Martin Luther King Jr. Day of Service (MLK Day) and September 11th Day of Service and Remembrance (September 11).
Brief description: Applicants for MLK Day and September 11 will submit an application following the application instructions. Applicants may apply for MLK Day, September 11, or both. The application is required to be considered for grant funding support from MLK Day or September 11.
Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the Addresses section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, CPO Office; Attention Patti Stengel, Senior Program Officer for Grants and Initiatives, Room 3208B; 250 E St SW., Washington, DC, 20525.
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at Room 4200 at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
(3) Electronically through
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
Patti Stengel, 202-606-6745, or by email at
CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
Applicants use these application instructions to submit their application for the competitive funding available to hold service events on either MLK Day or September 11 or both. The application information is collected electronically through the CNCS eGrants system.
This is a new information collection request. Previously the application instructions were separate for both MLK Day and September 11. This new information collection combines the approved specific instructions for MLK Day and the instructions for September 11, which used the approved generic CNCS application instructions. In the future, there will be one “Days of Service” competition for both of these grants.
The information collection will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application for MLK Day is due to expire on 03/31/2017. The current generic application for September 11 is due to expire on 01/31/2018.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 12, 2016
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Logistics Agency Headquarters, ATTN: Mr. Eric Linneman, DLA Installation Support (DS-S), 8725 John J. Kingman Rd., Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-6221; or call (703) 767-5019.
Respondents are individuals who work on or visit Defense Logistics Agency Installations and are involved in police matters.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of Intent; withdrawal.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District, is issuing this notice to advise Federal, state, and local governmental agencies and the public that USACE is withdrawing its Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Dam Safety Study, Lewisville Dam, Elm Fork Trinity River, Denton County, Texas.
The Fort Worth District is planning to hold the next public meeting for the Dam Safety Study, Lewisville Dam, Elm Fork Trinity River, Denton County, TX on Tuesday, September 27, 2016 from 6:00-8:00 p.m. in the Black Box Theater Room at the Lewisville Grand Theater. Notice of this meeting will be sent to all appropriate parties at a later date.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Planning and Environmental Center, CESWF-PEC-CI (Attn: Ms. Marcia Hackett), 819 Taylor Street, Room 3A12, Fort Worth, TX 76102.
Marcia Hackett, Senior Environmental Planner, Regional Planning and Environmental Center. Email address:
USACE published an NOI in the
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
On April 26, 2016, we published in the
We are reopening this competition in order to allow applicants more time to prepare and submit their applications. A number of applications received in response to the NIA were not eligible because the applications did not meet all of the requirements in the NIA, including the deadline for the submission of applications. Therefore, we are reopening the competition to allow applicants to submit or resubmit applications that meet all of the requirements in the NIA.
Applicants that have already submitted applications under the FY 2015 P3 competition are encouraged to review their applications and determine whether they have met all eligibility and application requirements, including the original deadline for submission, in the NIA and the application package, which is available on the
As stated above, applicants may resubmit applications that may not have met all of the requirements in the NIA. Applicants that have already submitted timely applications that meet all of the requirements of the NIA do not have to resubmit their applications. If a new application is not submitted, the Department will use the application that was submitted before the June 27, 2016, 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, deadline. Applications that did not meet the June 27, 2016, 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, deadline must be resubmitted to be considered for review.
All information in the NIA for this competition remains the same, except for the deadline date. We remind applicants that, to be eligible, the application must be submitted by a State, local, or tribal government. Further, the application must identify two or more discretionary Federal programs
Marilyn Fountain, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 11026, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 245-7346. Email address:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of application.
Tidal Energy Marketing, Inc. (Applicant or Tidal) has applied for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before August 11, 2016.
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On June 8, 2016, DOE received an application from Tidal for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for five years using existing international transmission facilities. Tidal is contemporaneously applying to make wholesale power sales at market-based rates from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
In its application, Tidal states that it does not own or operate any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that Tidal proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by Tidal have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Comments and other filings concerning Tidal's application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-422. An additional copy is to be provided directly to both Stacy Myers, Enbridge Energy Company, Inc., 1100 Louisiana, Suite 3300, Houston, TX 77002 and Kari Olesen, Tidal Energy Marketing Inc., 425 1st Street SW., Calgary, Alberta T2P 3L8.
A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at
National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.
Record of decision.
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a separately organized agency within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), is amending its July 20, 2011, Record of Decision for the Continued Operation of the Y-12 National Security Complex (2011 ROD) (76 FR 43319) to reflect its decision to implement a revised approach for meeting enriched uranium (EU) requirements, by upgrading existing EU processing buildings and constructing a new Uranium Processing Facility (UPF). Additionally, NNSA has decided to separate the single-structure UPF design concept into a new design consisting of multiple buildings, with each constructed to safety and security requirements appropriate to the building's function. This revised approach is a hybrid of two alternatives previously analyzed in the 2011
For further information on this Amended ROD, the SA, or to receive a copy of the SA, contact: Ms. Pam Gorman, SA Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, UPF Project Office, P.O. Box 2050, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8116; or
Y-12 is NNSA's primary site for uranium operations, including EU processing and storage, and is one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. In the Y-12 SWEIS, NNSA analyzed the potential environmental impacts of ongoing and future operations and activities at Y-12. Five alternatives were analyzed in the Y-12 SWEIS: (1) No Action Alternative (maintain the status quo), (2) UPF Alternative, (3) Upgrade in-Place Alternative (4) Capability-sized UPF Alternative, and (5) No Net Production/Capability-sized UPF Alternative (the environmentally preferable alternative in the 2011 Y-12 SWEIS). In the 2011 ROD, NNSA decided to implement the preferred alternative from the Y-12 SWEIS, the Capability-sized UPF Alternative, and to construct and operate a single-structure Capability-sized UPF at Y-12 as a replacement for certain existing buildings.
In January 2014, as a result of concerns about UPF cost and schedule growth, the Acting Administrator of the NNSA requested that the Director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory lead a “project peer review” of the UPF. The result of that review, the “Final Report of the Committee to Recommend Alternatives to the Uranium Processing Facility Plan in Meeting the Nation's Enriched Uranium Strategy” (the Red Team Report) was released in April 2014. The Red Team Report emphasized the importance of UPF in the context of a broader set of uranium mission requirements: Sustaining and modernizing EU manufacturing capabilities, reducing material at risk (MAR) in Y-12's EU processing facilities, making investments in enduring buildings, constructing new floor space and enabling transition of critical Building 9212 capabilities into the UPF no later than 2025.
Under the revised strategy that resulted from this review, NNSA would: (1) Construct and operate a new facility (the UPF) consisting of multiple buildings rather than the single-structure UPF facility analyzed in the Y-12 SWEIS, and (2) perform necessary maintenance and upgrades to some existing EU facilities. In the revised UPF design approach, the multiple UPF buildings would each be constructed to safety and security requirements appropriate to the building's function. The revised strategy is described in detail in Chapter 3 of the SA (and referred to, therein, as the proposed action).
The Y-12 SWEIS evaluated the potential impacts of the reasonable range of alternatives for continuing EU processing operations at Y-12 and provided a basis for the 2011 ROD. The Y-12 SWEIS provides much of the basis for this current decision. As discussed in the Summary, NNSA's revised strategy of upgrading existing EU buildings and constructing UPF with multiple buildings is different from the Capability-sized UPF that NNSA selected in the 2011 ROD. Instead, it is a hybrid approach that combines elements of the Upgrade in-Place Alternative and the Capability-sized UPF Alternative, Alternatives (3) and (4).
NNSA prepared an SA (DOE/EIS-0387-SA-01) in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality and DOE regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1502.9(c) and 10 CFR 1021.314(c)) to determine whether the preparation of a new or Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be required. In preparing the SA, NNSA considered new information relevant to environmental concerns that has emerged since the 2011 Y-12 SWEIS and also examined other ongoing or proposed actions at Y-12 and within the surrounding region of influence to determine whether these presented any potentially significant cumulative impacts.
Section 2.1 of the SA discusses environmental changes at Y-12 and in the surrounding region, which have occurred since publication of the Y-12 SWEIS and that are relevant to the analysis in the SA. Information from the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) 2014
The SA analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed action on land use, aesthetics, climate and air quality, geology and soils, water resources, ecological resources, cultural resources, infrastructure and utilities, socioeconomics, waste management, human health and safety, accidents and intentional destructive acts, transportation, and environmental justice. Section 4.2 of the SA provides: (1) A summary of the potential environmental impacts from the Y-12 SWEIS, (2) the estimate of potential impacts specific to the proposed action, and (3) a more detailed analysis of potential impacts for those NEPA resource areas where NNSA determined that there might be potentially significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns. Table 4-1 of the SA presents this information in a comparative fashion for each resource area.
As presented in Table 4-1, impacts to climate and air quality, geology and soils, water resources, cultural resources, infrastructure and utilities, socioeconomics, waste management, transportation, and environmental justice would be bounded by the analysis in the Y-12 SWEIS. With respect to ecological resources, since publication of the 2011 Y-12 SWEIS, the northern long-eared bat (
Potential impacts to human health, from either normal EU processing operations or accidents (including intentional destructive acts), would also be bounded by the analysis in the Y-12 SWEIS. Both the 2011 Y-12 SWEIS and the SA evaluated the safety of the continued use of existing facilities and concluded that all radiation doses from normal operations would be below regulatory standards with no statistically significant impact on the health and safety of workers or the public. With regard to seismic risks specifically, both the 2011 Y-12 SWEIS and the SA evaluated the potential impacts of the release of radioactive materials to the environment that could result from severe seismic events. For both the public and workers, less than 1 latent cancer fatality from radiological
Although land disturbance and visual impacts would be slightly greater than the analysis in the Y-12 SWEIS (due to transmission line construction), those impacts would not be significant.
The analysis in the SA indicates that the potential environmental impacts of the NNSA's revised strategy would not be significantly different or significantly greater than those NNSA identified in the Y-12 SWEIS. For the resource areas analyzed, no differences or only minor differences in potential environmental impacts would be expected to result. Detailed descriptions of these differences are presented in Table 4-1 of the SA. After comparing the analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed actions in the SA to those analyzed in the Y-12 SWEIS, NNSA determined that preparation of a supplemental or new EIS is not warranted.
Based on the analysis in the SA, NNSA's revised strategy is not a substantial change to the proposals covered by the Y-12 SWEIS, nor does it represent significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns, and is adequately supported by existing NEPA documentation, including the Y-12 SWEIS and additional NEPA analyses (identified in Section 1.4 of the SA) prepared to address specific activities at Y-12. Thus, consistent with 10 CFR 1021.315(e), the existing 2011 ROD for the Y-12 SWEIS can be amended, and no further NEPA documentation is required to implement the proposed action at Y-12.
In the 2011 ROD, NNSA designated the No Net Production/Capability-sized UPF Alternative (Alternative 5) as the environmentally preferable alternative. NNSA believes that alternative is still the environmentally preferable alternative.
NNSA has decided to continue to operate Y-12 to meet the stockpile stewardship mission critical activities assigned to the site. NNSA will meet EU requirements using the proposed action described in Section 3.0 of the SA. That proposed action is a hybrid approach of upgrading existing EU buildings and separating the single-structure UPF into multiple buildings, with each constructed to safety and security requirements appropriate to the building's function.
National security policies continue to require NNSA to maintain the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, as well as its core technical competencies and capabilities. As was the case when NNSA issued its Record of Decision for the Y-12 SWEIS in 2011, NNSA's decisions are based on its mission responsibilities and its need to sustain Y-12's ability to operate in a manner that allows it to fulfill its responsibilities in an environmentally sound, timely, and fiscally prudent manner. NNSA continues to require Y-12 EU processing facilities to provide reliable, long-term enriched uranium processing capability with modern technologies and equipment, improved security posture for Special Nuclear Material; reduced accident risks; improved health and safety for workers and the public; improved operational efficiency; and reduction in the cost of operating and maintaining key facilities.
This amended decision will enable NNSA to maintain the required expertise and capabilities to deliver uranium products while modernizing production facilities. This amended decision will also avoid many of the safety risks of operating aged buildings and equipment by relocating processes that cannot be sustained in existing, enduring buildings. It will also allow NNSA to reduce the risks of EU operations through process improvements enabled by NNSA's investments in developing new technologies to apply in Y-12 facilities. Through an extended life program, mission-critical existing and enduring buildings and infrastructure will be maintained and/or upgraded, further enhancing safety and security at the Y-12 site.
Y-12 will continue to operate in compliance with environmental laws, regulations, policies, and within a framework of contractual requirements. In the 2011 ROD, NNSA adopted the measures identified in the 2011 Y-12 SWEIS, to avoid, minimize and mitigate environmental impacts from the Capability-sized UPF Alternative (Alternative 4). NNSA will continue to impose contractual requirements for actions necessary to comply with the identified mitigation measures.
Additionally, as a result of consultations with the USFWS, NNSA is extending by one month the time frame for tree cutting restrictions, established for the protection of roosting and swarming bats. These contractually required restrictions will now remain in effect annually from March 31st through November 15th.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Hancock Wind, 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 26, 2016.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of North Star Solar PV 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 26, 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
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of its staff may attend the meeting of the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Regional State Committee as noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
The meeting will be held on July 18, 2016 from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Central Time. The location of the meeting is at the Westin DFW Hotel, 4545 West John Carpenter Freeway, Irving, TX 75063. The hotel phone number is (972) 929-4500.
The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
These meetings are open to the public.
For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5937 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Terrapin Energy 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 26, 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Five Points Solar Park 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 26, 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
On November 2, 2015, HY Power Energy Company 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 Inglis Lock By-pass Dam Water Power Project (Inglis By-pass Project or project) to be located at the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Inglis Dam on the Withlacoochee River in Levy County, Florida. 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 60-foot-long, 98-foot-wide intake channel; (2) a 115-foot-long, 28-foot-wide powerhouse containing one generating unit with a total capacity of 2.8 megawatts; (3) a 10-foot-long, 20-foot-wide control building; (4) a 25-foot-long, 25-foot-wide substation adjacent to the control building; (5) a 300-foot-long, 12.47kV transmission line. The proposed project would have an estimated average annual generation of 16,200 megawatt-hours, and operate as directed by the Corps.
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 the Commission's Web site at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Black Oak Wind, 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 26, 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
On July 5, 2016, the Commission issued an order in Docket Nos. EL16-
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL16-79-000, et al., established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collections and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the requirements and burden of the information collections described below.
Comments on the collections of information are due September 12, 2016.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC16-12-000) by either of the following methods:
•
•
Please reference the specific collection number and/or title in your comments.
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
For the FERC-511, FERC-515, and FERC-574, the Commission staff believes that industry is similarly situated to FERC in terms of average wages and benefits. For the hourly burden cost, we are using the FERC 2016 average cost (wages plus benefits) of $74.50/hour.
The exemption applies to companies engaged in the transportation, sale, or resale of natural gas in interstate commerce if: (a) They receive gas at or within the boundaries of the state from another person at or within the boundaries of that state; (b) such gas is ultimately consumed in such state; (c) the rates, service and facilities of such company are subject to regulation by a State Commission; and (d) that such State Commission is exercising that jurisdiction. 18 CFR part 152 specifies the data required to be filed by pipeline companies for an exemption.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new license for the Loup River Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 1256), located on the Loup River in Nance and Platte Counties, Nebraska, and prepared a final environmental assessment (EA).
In the final EA, Commission staff analyzes the potential environmental effects of licensing the project, and concludes that issuing a new license for
A copy of the final 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
For further information, please contact Chelsea Hudock at (202) 502-8448 or by email at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to publish in the
Comments identified by the specific case number provided in this document, must be received on or before August 11, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0024, and the specific PMN number or TME number for the chemical related to your comment, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitters of the actions addressed in this document.
1.
2.
This document provides receipt and status reports, which cover the period from May 2, 2016 to May 31, 2016, and consists of the PMNs and TMEs both pending and/or expired, and the NOCs to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.
Under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601
Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, before initiating the activity. Section 5(h)(1) of TSCA authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application, to manufacture (includes import) or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a), for “test marketing” purposes, which is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to:
Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the
As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that the information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI.
For the 66 PMNs received by EPA during this period, Table 1 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the PMN; the date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer/importer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer/importer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.
For the 28 NOCs received by EPA during this period, Table 3 provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI): The EPA case number assigned to the NOC; the date the NOC was received by EPA; the projected date of commencement provided by the submitter in the NOC; and the chemical identity.
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of requests by registrants to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide registrations. EPA intends to grant these requests at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of
Comments must be received on or before January 9, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0345, by one of the following methods:
•
•
Submit written withdrawal request by mail to: Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. ATTN: Michael Yanchulis.
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Michael Yanchulis, Information Technology and Resources Managment Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0237; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides.
1.
2.
This notice announces receipt by the Agency of requests from registrants to cancel 277 pesticide products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) or 24(c) (7 U.S.C. 136v(c)). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number (or company number and 24(c) number) in Table 1 of this unit.
Unless the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of the requests or the registrants withdraw their requests, EPA intends to issue an order in the
Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in this unit.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation should submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products that are currently in the United States and that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. Because the Agency has identified no significant potential risk concerns associated with these pesticide products, upon cancellation of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II., EPA anticipates allowing registrants to sell and distribute existing stocks of these products until January 15, 2017. Thereafter, registrants will be prohibited from selling or distributing the pesticides identified in Table 1 of Unit II., except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 or for proper disposal. Persons other than registrants will generally be allowed to sell, distribute, or use existing stocks until such stocks are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled products.
7 U.S.C. 136
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10421 First Guaranty Bank and Trust Company of Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of First Guaranty Bank and Trust Company of Jacksonville (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.
Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for extension of an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning cost accounting standards administration. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before August 11, 2016.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Kathlyn Hopkins, Procurement Analyst, Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA, 202-969-7226, or email
FAR Subpart 30.6 and the provision at 52.230-6 include pertinent rules and regulations related to the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS), along with administrative policies and procedures. These require companies performing CAS-covered contracts to submit notifications and descriptions of certain cost accounting practice changes, including revisions to their Disclosure Statements, if applicable. The frequency of this collection is variable, as detailed below.
FAR 52.230-6 requires contractors to submit to the cognizant Contracting Officer a description of any cost accounting practice change, the total potential impact of the change on contracts containing a CAS provision, a general dollar magnitude or detailed cost-impact proposal of the change which identifies the potential shift of costs among CAS-covered contracts by contract type (
One respondent submitted public comments on the extension of the previously approved information collection. The respondent offered numerous comments, which are organized topically and analyzed below:
Discussions among the organizations represented by the respondent indicate that items (a), (b) and (c), as listed above, are produced annually. Many noted that DoD often requests item (e), which would bring the number of responses to four annually. Some noted that they have experienced as many as six to eight responses annually, but this was not common. Still, the respondent's assessment suggests the Government's initial estimate of 2.27 responses per respondent per year was low, and recommended an estimate of 3.5 responses per year.
The respondent reported that 175 hours may understate the effort necessary to prepare certain types of responses (
All in all, the initial Government estimate was increased in two areas: (1) Number of respondents, and (2) number of annual responses per respondent. The number of hours per response remained the same.
The respondent offered several recommendations aimed at reducing the number of responses and the average hours per response, while also reducing the Government's burdens without any increase in financial risk. While the respondent generally affirmed the
To the extent the Government needs to know about a contractor's cost accounting practices for contract price negotiations, the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) requires contractors to maintain a current, accurate, and complete Disclosure Statement because it is “cost or pricing data.” TINA provides remedies for defective data if the Government relies on a non-current cost accounting disclosure to its detriment.
Additionally, if TINA does not apply to a negotiated award (as is the case with competitively awarded cost-type contracts) but the Government nevertheless relies to its detriment on a contractor's non-current cost accounting disclosures, then FAR 30.603-2(c)(2) allows the Government to assert a CAS 401 non-compliance. FAR 52.230-6(g) prescribes the process for resolving non-compliances.
1. Contractors must notify the Government of prospective cost accounting practice changes on or before the effective date of the change. For retroactive changes within the cost accounting period and corrections of non-compliances, contractors must provide notice on or before the effective date of the change. Modification of the current notification format or the evaluation of cost impacts (including materiality) is not needed.
2. Contractors also summarize all changes effective or implemented within the cost accounting period in their annual Final Indirect Cost Rate Proposals. This is an existing requirement for most Respondents pursuant to FAR 52.216-7(d)(2)(iii)(M). For contractors who do not perform contracts containing FAR 52.216-7, add a requirement at FAR 52.230-6 that contractors nevertheless must report all cost accounting practice changes annually, not later than 6 months after the contractor's cost accounting period ends.
3. For cost accounting practice changes that occur during the cost accounting period, contractors must update their CASB Disclosure Statements at least once annually (within 90 days after the end of the cost accounting period), or no later than the first Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data after the changes become effective (often be in connection with Forward Pricing Rate Proposals). Non-disclosure of cost accounting practice changes at the time of a price negotiation based on Cost Analysis (see FAR 15.404-1(c)) may constitute a CAS 401 non-compliance at the contracting officer's discretion.
1. Allow contractors to prepare cost impact proposals annually, to include all cost accounting practice changes summarized on Schedule M of each Respondent's Final Indirect Cost Rate Proposal. Cost impact proposals (either GDM or DCI, at the Government's request) would be due within nine months (or other mutually agreeable period) after the end of each cost accounting period (if changes occurred).
2. Modify the current cost impact protocol to establish an explicit period (
3. Allow the Government and the contractor to elect to resolve cost impacts in arrears.
4. Contractors and the Government can use, without significant modification, the existing annual Final Indirect Cost Rate Proposal process (FAR 52.216-7(d)) to track both cost accounting practice changes and CAS-covered contracts affected by the change(s). Contractors who do not submit annual Final Indirect Cost Rate Proposals will nevertheless be required to report changes annually (see recommendation above).
In this regard, for both unilateral changes and corrections of non-compliances, the CAS administration regulations at CFR 9903.201-1(b)&(d) provide that (1) the Contracting Officer shall make a finding that the contemplated contract price and cost adjustments will protect the United States from payment of increased costs, in the aggregate and (2) that the net effect of the adjustments being made does not result in the recovery of more than the estimated amount of such increased costs. The distinctions created in FAR 30.606(a)(3) are inconsistent with these CAS regulations, create significant unnecessary burden for both parties, and cause significant negotiation challenges as the Government often attempts to recover more than increased costs in the aggregate as contemplated by the CAS regulations. To relieve the unnecessary burden FAR 30.606(a)(3) places on preparing and evaluating GDM and DCI proposals, and to foster equitable resolutions, the respondent recommended:
1. Allow required changes, unilateral changes, and desirable changes to be combined.
2. Allow prospective corrections of non-compliances to be combined with other types of changes if made simultaneously. (The respondent noted that retroactive corrections of noncompliances that impact prior cost accounting periods cannot be combined with other types of changes, since because unilateral changes can only be made retroactively to the beginning of the current cost accounting period.) This topic is discussed in a recent Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals matter. In the Appeal of Raytheon (ASBCA Nos. 57801, 57803, 58068), the Board provides a history of how combinations were once permitted.
An increase in costs allocated to cost-reimbursable contracts, or a decrease in costs allocated to fixed price contracts. “Increased cost in the aggregate” is determined by adding these two amounts.
While this provision seems to make sense at first glance, practical experience often yields inequitable results. For example, if a contractor changes a cost accounting practice that shifts $10 away from a fixed price contract (
1. No more cumbersome Microsoft Word document that takes more time to format than to complete;
2. An electronic database would automatically track all changes made by contactors, which would make review easier for both contractors and the Government;
3. Because this system would include the contractor's cognizant contracting officer(s), it could automatically notify them of Disclosure Statement revisions;
4. The system could be used for notifications so that even if Disclosure Statements have not been updated, the Government is aware of all new cost accounting practices;
5. Government auditors could easily verify the sufficiency of contractors' annual disclosure of cost accounting practice changes;
6. On-line tracking of cost accounting practice changes would improve visibility into and status of cost impact proposals and resolutions;
7. Government-wide centralized access would allow PCOs to verify the status of Disclosure Statement submissions and adequacy determinations.
Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control Number 9000-0129, Cost Accounting Standards Administration, in all correspondence.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on “Prevalence Survey of Healthcare-Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Use in U.S. Hospitals.” This data collection will provide information on the burden and types of healthcare-associated infections, including infections due to antimicrobial-resistant pathogens, and antimicrobial drugs in U.S. short-term acute care hospitals.
Written comments must be received on or before September 12, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0062 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (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. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Prevalence Survey of Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAIs) and Antimicrobial Use in U.S. Acute Care Hospitals—Revision—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Preventing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and reducing the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance are priorities for the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Improving antimicrobial drug prescribing in the United States is a critical component of strategies to reduce antimicrobial resistance, and is a key component of the President's National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria (CARB), which calls for “inappropriate inpatient antibiotic use for monitored conditions/agents” to be “reduced 20% from 2014 levels” (page 9,
The CDC's hospital prevalence survey efforts began in 2008-2009. A pilot survey was conducted over a 1-day period at each of nine acute care hospitals in one U.S. city. This pilot phase was followed in 2010 by a phase 2, limited roll-out HAI and antimicrobial use prevalence survey, conducted in 22 hospitals across 10 Emerging Infections Program sites (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Tennessee). A full-scale, phase 3 survey was conducted in 2011, involving 183 hospitals in the 10 EIP sites. Data from this survey conducted in 2011 showed that there were an estimated 722,000 HAIs in U.S acute care hospitals in 2011, and about half of the 11,282 patients included in the survey in 2011 were receiving antimicrobial drugs. The survey was repeated in 2015-2016 to update the national HAI and antimicrobial drug use burden; data from this survey will also provide baseline information on the quality of antimicrobial drug prescribing for selected, common clinical conditions in hospitals. Data collection is ongoing at this time.
A revision of the prevalence survey's existing OMB approval is sought to reduce the data collection burden and to extend the approval to 12/31/19 to allow another short-term acute care hospital survey to be conducted in 2019. Data from the 2019 survey will be used to evaluate progress in eliminating HAIs and improving antimicrobial drug use.
The 2019 survey will be performed in a sample of up to 300 acute care hospitals, drawn from the acute care hospital populations in each of the 10 EIP sites (and including participation from many hospitals that participated in prior phases of the survey). Infection prevention personnel in participating hospitals and EIP site personnel will collect demographic and clinical data from the medical records of a sample of eligible patients in their hospitals on a single day in 2019, to identify CDC-defined HAIs and collect information on antimicrobial drug use. The survey data will be used to estimate the prevalence of HAIs and antimicrobial drug use and describe the distribution of infection types and pathogens. The data will also be used to determine the quality of antimicrobial drug prescribing. These data will inform strategies to reduce and eliminate healthcare-associated infections—a DHHS Healthy People 2020 objective (
There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden for the information collection request is 2,010 hours.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Performance Monitoring of “Working with Publicly Funded Health Centers to Reduce Teen Pregnancy among Youth from Vulnerable Populations”—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In 2014, the US rate of 24.2 births per 1,000 female teens aged 15-19 was the highest of all Western industrialized countries. Access to reproductive health services and the most effective types of contraception has been shown to reduce the likelihood that teens become pregnant. Nevertheless, recent research and lessons learned through a previous teen pregnancy prevention project implemented through CDC in partnership with the Office of Adolescent Health (2010-2015; OMB no. 0920-0952, exp. date 12/31/2015) demonstrate that many health centers serving teens do not engage in youth-friendly best practices that may enhance access to care and to the most effective types of contraception. Furthermore, youth at highest risk of experiencing a teen pregnancy are often not connected to the reproductive health care that they need, even when they are part of a population that is known to be at high risk for a teen pregnancy. Significant racial, ethnic and geographic disparities in teen birth rates persist and continue to be a focus of public health efforts.
To address these challenges, CDC is providing funding to three organizations to strengthen partnerships and processes that improve reproductive health services for teens. Mississippi First, Inc., a non-profit focused on child well-being and educational achievement, was funded to work in Coahoma, Quitman and Tunica counties in Mississippi. Sexual Health Initiatives For Teens North Carolina (SHIFT NC), a non-profit organization focused on the sexual health of adolescents, was funded to work in Durham County, North Carolina. The Georgia Association for Primary Health Care, Inc, which represents all of Georgia's Federally Qualified Health Centers, was funded to work in Chatham County, Georgia. CDC's awardees will work with approximately 25 publicly funded health centers to support implementation of evidence-based recommendations for health centers and providers to improve adolescent access to reproductive health services. In addition, awardees will work with approximately 35 youth-serving organizations (YSO) to provide staff training and develop systematic approaches to identifying youth who are at risk for a teen pregnancy and referring those youth to reproductive health care services. Finally, awardees will develop communication campaigns that increase awareness of the partner health centers' services for teens. Activities are expected to result in changes to health center and YSO partners' policies, to staff practices, and to youth health care seeking and teen pregnancy prevention behaviors.
The best practices to improve adolescent access to reproductive health services included in this program are supported by evidence in the literature and recommended by major medical associations. Each of the components of the current project has been implemented as part of past teen pregnancy prevention efforts. Consistent with CDC's mission of using evidence to improve public health programs, conducting an evaluation of combined best practices, in concert with community-clinical linkage of youth to services to increase their access to reproductive health care, can provide information that will inform future teen pregnancy prevention efforts. CDC therefore plans to collect information needed to assess these efforts. Information will be collected from the CDC awardees, the health center and YSO partner organizations, staff at these organizations, and the youth served by the health center partner organizations. CDC will use the information to determine the types of training and technical assistance that are needed, to monitor whether awardees meet objectives related to health center and YSO partners' policies and staff practices, to support a data-driven quality improvement process for adolescent sexual and reproductive health care services and referrals, and to assess whether the project model was effective in increasing the utilization of services by youth.
OMB approval is requested for three years. Participation in the organizational assessment activities is required for awardees and partner organizations. Participation in the Health Center Youth Survey is voluntary for youth and will not involve the collection of identifiable personal information. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 1,150.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
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 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions:
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.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
2.
The QHP Enrollee Survey, which is based on the CAHPS® Health Plan Survey, will (1) help consumers choose among competing health plans, (2) provide actionable information that the QHPs can use to improve performance, (3) provide information that regulatory and accreditation organizations can use to regulate and accredit plans, and (4) provide a longitudinal database for consumer research. CMS completed two rounds of developmental testing including 2014 psychometric testing and 2015 beta testing of the QHP Enrollee Survey. The psychometric testing helped determine psychometric properties and provided an initial measure of performance for Marketplaces and QHPs to use for quality improvement. Based on psychometric test results, CMS further refined the questionnaire and sampling design to conduct the 2015 beta test of the QHP Enrollee Survey. CMS obtained clearance for the national implementation of the QHP Enrollee Survey which is currently being conducted in 2016. At this time, CMS is requesting approval of adding six disability status items required by section 4302 of the Affordable Care Act and that were tested during the 2014 psychometric testing of the QHP Enrollee Survey. With the addition of these six questions, the revised total estimated annual burden hours of national implementation of the QHP Enrollee Survey is 37,823 hours with 105,015 responses. The revised total annualized burden over three years for this requested information collection is 113,469 hours and the total average annualized number of responses is 315,045 responses.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hereby giving notice that the National Preparedness and Response Science Board (NPRSB) will be holding a public teleconference.
The NPRSB will hold a public meeting on July 29, 2016, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST. The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.
Individuals who wish to participate should send an email to
Please submit an inquiry via the NPRSB Contact Form located at:
Pursuant to section 319M of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-7f) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a), HHS established the NPRSB. The Board shall provide expert advice and guidance to the Secretary on scientific, technical, and other matters of special interest to HHS regarding current and future chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological agents, whether naturally occurring, accidental, or deliberate. The NPRSB may also provide advice and guidance to the Secretary and/or the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response on other matters related to
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 400 hours.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is correcting a notice previously published in the
NIH is correcting the dates for the Challenge: The Challenge Judging period from January 16, 2016-March 30, 2016 is changing to February 25, 2016-September 12, 2016 and the date for Winners Announced is changing from April 16-20, 2016 to September 12, 2016.
NIH is also correcting the prize distribution: The current notice states “The grand prize Entry will be awarded up to $30,000. The second place Entry will be awarded a runner-up prize of up to $20,000.” The following addition will be made—“In the event of a tie for the grand prize, the top two scorers will each be awarded up to $20,000 and the next highest scorer will be awarded up to $10,000.”
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has established the Global Entry international trusted traveler program at most major U.S. airports. Global Entry allows pre-approved participants dedicated CBP processing into the United States using Global Entry kiosks located at designated airports. In 2013, CBP announced a limited pilot program through which certain British citizens were eligible to apply for participation in the Global Entry program. This
Global Entry eligibility will be expanded to British citizens on July 12, 2016. Applications will be accepted beginning July 12, 2016.
Garret A. Conover, Office of Field Operations, (202) 325-4062,
Global Entry is a voluntary program that allows for dedicated CBP processing of pre-approved travelers arriving in the United States at Global Entry kiosks located at designated airports. In a final rule published in the
Eligibility for participation in Global Entry is limited to U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, U.S. lawful permanent residents, and certain nonimmigrant aliens from countries that have entered into arrangements with CBP regarding international trusted traveler programs. Specifically, certain nonimmigrant aliens from countries that have entered into arrangements with CBP concerning international trusted traveler programs may be eligible to apply for participation in Global Entry after CBP announces the arrangement by publication of a notice in the
In a notice published in the
In a notice published in the
In a notice published in the
In the August 9, 2013 notice referenced in the previous section, CBP also announced a limited Global Entry pilot program allowing a limited number of British citizens who frequently travel to the United States to apply for participation in Global Entry. During this limited pilot, certain British citizens who were identified as potential participants in the pilot program, received a promotional code from a British airline carrier, the U.S. Embassy, or CBP to use during the application process. These applicants were required to obtain a police certificate to be presented to a CBP officer at the time of the Global Entry interview to demonstrate that they had no criminal history. The United States and the United Kingdom limited the number of British citizens who could apply for Global Entry to allow for the development of the program's infrastructure. The notice stated that CBP expected to be able to expand eligibility to include all British citizens in the near future and that such an expansion would be announced by notice in the
This document announces that pursuant to the Joint Declaration signed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, CBP, and the United Kingdom Home Office, United Kingdom Border Agency of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom Border Agency) on June 24, 2008, CBP is expanding Global Entry eligibility to include all British citizens in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth below. As a result, CBP is concluding the limited pilot program. All pilot participants will continue their Global Entry membership for the initial five-year membership period. If pilot participants want to renew their membership when their initial Global Entry membership expires, the renewal will be subject to the terms and conditions set forth below.
Any British citizen with a valid United Kingdom passport documenting his or her British citizenship may apply for Global Entry. The terms “citizens of the United Kingdom” as used in the Joint Statement and “British citizen” as used in this notice refer to citizens of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.
Before a British citizen can apply for Global Entry, he or she must first register to apply through the United Kingdom Home Office Web site,
To apply for Global Entry, the applicant will be required to complete the online application located on the GOES Web site, pay the non-refundable Global Entry fee, and satisfy all the requirements of Global Entry. During the application process, the applicant will also be required to enter the UK Access Code on the GOES Web site. If an applicant is not vetted by the United Kingdom and does not have a UK Access Code prior to applying to Global Entry, the Global Entry application will not be accepted. The applicant will be permitted to participate in Global Entry only upon successful completion of a risk assessment by CBP and completion of an interview with a CBP officer.
Applicants may be denied enrollment in the Global Entry program for various reasons. The eligibility criteria are set forth in detail in the Global Entry final rule and 8 CFR 235.12.
Certain U.S. citizens who are 18 years of age or older have the option to enroll in Registered Traveller, a registered traveler program in the United Kingdom that provides expedited entry into the country via ePassport gates at border control. An ePassport is required for Registered Traveller for use at these ePassport gates. A U.S. citizen does not have to be a member of a CBP trusted traveler program to apply for Registered Traveller. However, a U.S. citizen must meet specific visa and/or travel qualifications to be eligible to apply for Registered Traveller.
Eligible U.S. applicants may apply for Registered Traveller on the United Kingdom Web site. U.S. applicants must register for Registered Traveller directly with the British Government and undergo a background check. There is a fee associated with Registered Traveller. The applicant will be notified by the United Kingdom about whether he or she is approved for Registered Traveller. More information about Registered Traveller, including the eligibility criteria and how to apply, is available at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the registration for events in support of America's PrepareAthon! National Day of Action. This is part of a FEMA effort to coordinate a comprehensive campaign to build and sustain national preparedness, including public outreach and community-based and private-sector programs to enhance national resilience.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 12, 2016.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Samuel Hultzman, IT Program Manager, DHS/FEMA, Individual and Community Preparedness, (202) 746-9090. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at email address:
As part of 6 U.S.C. 742 and Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8): National Preparedness, the President tasked the Secretary of Homeland Security to:
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) intends to conduct one (or more) National Day of Action, coordinated nationally by FEMA. Schools, businesses, faith-based organizations, governments at all levels, other community organizations, and families will participate in this National Day of Action by voluntarily taking part in a simultaneous multi-hazard drill and public education effort. These entities taking part in the National Day of Action register their planned events through this information collection effort. This collection was previously titled, Community Drill Day Registration and was OMB Control Number: 1660-NW79. It is now OMB Control Number 1660-0134.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice of a federal advisory committee meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of two scheduled meetings of the Moving to Work (MTW) Research Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee meetings will be held via conference call on Tuesday, July 26, 2016, and Thursday, July 28. The meeting is open to the public and is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, notice for the July 26, 2016, meeting is being published fewer than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting as exceptional circumstances exist. It is imperative that the Committee hold its July 26, 2016, meeting to accommodate the scheduling priorities of key participants so that they may begin the work of the Committee. Given HUD's need for the Committee's advice, and the scheduling difficulties of selecting an alternative date, the agency deems it important for the advisory committee to meet on the July 26, 2016.
The teleconference meetings will be held on July 26, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) and July 28, 2016 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EDT).
Laurel Davis, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public and Indian Housing, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4116, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-5759 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or can email:
Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5. U.S.C. App. 10(a)(2). The Moving to Work (MTW) Research Advisory Committee (Committee) was established on April 16, 2016, to advise HUD on specific policy proposals and methods of research and evaluation related to the expansion of the MTW demonstration to an additional 100 high-performing Public Housing Authorities (PHAs). See 81 FR 244630.
HUD is convening two meetings to discuss potential policies that HUD may require new MTW PHAs to test as a condition of admittance to the program. HUD will convene the first meeting on Tuesday, July 26, 2016, via teleconference from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EDT). A second meeting of the Committee will convene on Thursday, July 28, 2016, via teleconference from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EST). The agendas for the meetings are as follows:
The public is invited to call-in to both meetings by using the following toll-free
With advance registration, members of the public will have an opportunity to provide feedback during the calls. This total amount of time for such feedback will be limited to ensure pertinent Committee business is completed, and comments will be taken on a first-come first-served basis by HUD. If the number of registered commenters exceeds the available time, HUD may ask for the submission of comments via email. In order to pre-register to provide comments, please visit the MTW Demonstration's expansion Web page at:
Records and documents discussed during the meeting, as well as other information about the work of this Committee, will be available for public viewing as they become available at:
Questions concerning this notice should be directed to Laurel Davis, DFO, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development at
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the final environmental impact statement (EIS) and final habitat conservation plan (HCP) for Na Pua Makani Power Partners, LLC's (applicant) Na Pua Makani Wind Energy Project (Project). The applicant is requesting an incidental take permit (ITP) to authorize take of one threatened and six endangered species (covered species) listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). If issued, the ITP would authorize incidental take of the covered species that may occur as a result of the construction and operation of the Project over a 21-year period. The HCP describes the applicant's actions and measures to minimize, mitigate, and monitor incidental take of the covered species. The final EIS has been prepared in response to the permit application in accordance with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The Service's decision on issuance of an ITP will occur no sooner than 30 days after the publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's notice of the final EIS in the
You may obtain copies of the final EIS and final HCP by one of the following methods.
•
•
•
Ms. Jodi Charrier (Renewable Energy Coordinator) or Mr. Aaron Nadig (Oahu, Kauai, American Samoa Geographic Deputy Field Supervisor), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
We are advising the public of the availability of the final EIS and final HCP associated with an ITP application. The applicant is requesting an ITP for a 21-year permit term to authorize take of the threatened Newell's shearwater (
The applicant proposes to construct and operate the wind energy generation Project on approximately 707 acres of public and private lands near the town of Kahuku on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. The western portion of the Project would be located on about 255 acres of State of Hawaii lands managed by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. The eastern portion of the Project would be located on about 452 acres of land owned by the Malaekahana Hui West, LLC. Additional parcels would be used to access the Project, for which the applicant would utilize temporary entry permits, licenses or easements.
The proposed Project would have a generating capacity of up to approximately 25 megawatts (MW) and
The proposed Project area is surrounded by agricultural farm lands to the north; residential housing, community infrastructure, and agricultural farm lands to the east; a mixture of agricultural farm lands and undeveloped forest lands to the south; and undeveloped forest lands to the west. The James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge is approximately 0.75 mile to the north, and the Malaekahana State Recreation Area is 0.1 mile to the east. The operational 30-MW Kahuku wind project abuts the proposed Project area to the northwest.
Acoustic monitoring has confirmed the presence of the Hawaiian hoary bat in the vicinity of the Project site. Hawaiian hoary bats have collided with wind turbines at the 30-MW Kahuku and 69-MW Kawailoa wind projects on Oahu, and at the 30-MW Kaheawa I, 21-MW Kaheawa II, and 21-MW Auwahi wind projects on Maui. The Hawaiian goose occurs in the vicinity of the proposed Project and may collide with wind turbines as documented at Kaheawa I and II. Although there have been no known occurrences of Newell's shearwaters, Hawaiian stilts, Hawaiian coots, Hawaiian moorhens, or Hawaiian ducks colliding with wind turbines within the State of Hawaii, these covered species may transit the Project area.
The applicant has developed a final HCP that addresses the incidental take of the seven covered species that may occur as a result of the construction and operation of the Project over a period of 21 years. The final HCP details proposed measures the applicant will implement to minimize, mitigate, and monitor incidental take of the covered species. The applicant has also applied for a State of Hawaii incidental take license under Hawaii State law.
To offset anticipated take, the applicant is proposing mitigation measures on Oahu that include: (1) Funding research to support effective management of Newell's shearwaters; (2) fencing and predator control to conserve the Hawaiian goose at James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge; (3) a combination of bat research and native forest restoration and management to increase Hawaiian hoary bat habitat; (4) acoustic surveys to document occupancy of the affected area by the Hawaiian hoary bat; and (5) fencing and public outreach at Hamakua Marsh to benefit conservation of the Hawaiian stilt, Hawaiian coot, Hawaiian moorhen and the Hawaiian duck. This final HCP incorporates adaptive management provisions to allow for modifications to the mitigation and monitoring measures as knowledge is gained during implementation of the HCP.
The proposed action in the FEIS is to approve the final HCP and to issue an ITP with a term of 21 years to the applicant for incidental take of the covered species caused by covered activities associated with the construction and operation of the Project, if permit issuance criteria are met.
The development of the final HCP and the proposed issuance of an ITP under this plan is a Federal action that triggers the need for compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
Under the no-action alternative, the proposed Project would not be constructed, the proposed final HCP would not be implemented, and no ITP would be issued. The proposed action alternative is construction and operation of the Project consisting of between 8 and 10 wind turbines, implementation of the final HCP, and issuance of the ITP. In response to public comments on the draft EIS related to visual impacts and consideration of fewer turbines with larger generating capacities, a modified proposed action option with a reduced maximum number of turbines consisting of only 9 turbines with larger generating capacities and taller dimensions was added to the final EIS. The modified proposed action option also includes implementation of the final HCP, and issuance of the ITP. The larger wind energy generation project alternative would include the construction and operation of a larger generation facility of up to 42 MW. This alternative would consist of up to 12 WTGs, each with a generating capacity of up to 3.3 MW, implementation of an HCP, and issuance of the ITP.
In accordance with NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14(e)), the Service has identified the proposed action (alternative 2) including the modified proposed action option (alternative 2a) as the preferred alternative. Under NEPA, the “agency's preferred alternative” is a preliminary indication of the Federal responsible official's preference of action, which is chosen from among the alternatives analyzed in an EIS. It is the alternative which the agency believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical and other factors (43 CFR 46.420(d)). The preferred alternative is not a final agency decision; rather, it is an indication of the agency's preference. The final agency decision is presented in the Record of Decision.
In May 2013, the applicant began holding community meetings, small focus group meetings with stakeholders, and individual meetings with community leaders and legislators to discuss the proposed Project and engage the public in the Project's planning and design.
The Service published a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare a draft EIS in the
The State of Hawaii's environmental impact statement preparation notice (EISPN) was distributed to interested parties for review between December 23, 2013, and January 23, 2014, and again between November 8 and December 8, 2014 (republished to reflect the addition of a second access into the Project site). During the initial public scoping period for the EISPN, three public scoping meetings were held at Kahuku Community Center: on November 13, 2013, January 10, 2014, and November 19, 2014. In addition to the public meetings, a media advisory was sent out prior to each meeting. The State of Hawaii's Department of Land and Natural Resources hosted a public hearing at the Kahuku Community Center on June 4, 2015. The draft EIS was published in the State of Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control's
We will evaluate the permit application, associated documents, and public comments in reaching a final decision on whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of section 10(c) of the ESA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32) and NEPA and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Utah Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will host a meeting.
On July 27, the RAC will take a field tour of the Three Creeks area in Rich County, Utah from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Attendance is optional. On July 28, the RAC will meet from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
On July 28, the RAC will meet at the BLM Salt Lake Field Office, 2370 S. Decker Lake Blvd., West Valley City, Utah 84119.
If you wish to attend the field tour, contact Lola Bird, Public Affairs Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101; phone (801) 539-4033; or,
Agenda topics will include the Three Creeks Grazing Allotment Environmental Assessment, Greater sage-grouse plan implementation, BLM-Utah recreation fee donation policy and the San Rafael Desert Master Leasing Plan.
A half-hour public comment period will take place on July 28 from 2:00-2:30 p.m., where the public may address the RAC. Written comments may also be sent to the BLM at the address listed in the
The meeting is open to the public; however, transportation, lodging, and meals are the responsibility of the participating individuals.
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to leave a message or question for the above individual. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Replies are provided during normal business hours.
43 CFR 1784.4-1.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Museum of the American Indian has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribe, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and a present-day Indian tribe. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Museum of the American Indian. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribe stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Museum of the American at the address in this notice by August 11, 2016.
Colleen Hicks, Museum of the American Indian, P.O. Box 864, Novato, CA 94948, telephone (415) 897-4064, fax (415) 892-7804, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Museum of the American Indian. The human remains were removed from Marin County, CA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Museum of the American Indian professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California.
Between 1966 and 1967, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from site CA-MRN-365, in Novato, Marin County, CA, during field school projects at the Miwok Park. The human remains are eight small fragments that were mixed with faunal collections from the site. During the excavations, several house floors were uncovered and multiple burials were removed. The human remains from these burials were repatriated and reinterred prior to the passage of NAGPRA. The faunal collection was donated to the Museum of the American Indian, and the additional human remains discussed in this notice were discovered during a reevaluation of the faunal collection between 2012 and 2014. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 2007, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from site CA-MRN-365, in Novato, Marin County, CA, during archeological evaluations for a building project at the Miwok Park by Tom Origer and Associates. The human remains are seven small fragments that were mixed with faunal collections from the site. The human remains were discovered during a reevaluation of the faunal collection between 2012 and 2014. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Site CA-MRN-365 is within the traditional area of the Coast Miwok Indians. It is estimated that the Miwok occupied the site for over 3000 years, though perhaps not continuously. The economy of the area was based on marsh resources with hunting and gathering in this North Coast Range area. The semi-permanent village usually had several family groups that migrated to other seasonal camps throughout the growing season. It is a multi-component site, first documented by Al Elsasser in 1961, with artifact assemblages indicating an occupation from 3000 to 500 years from present date. The site is located along a creek bed and extends about 100 feet along the bank. The site was greatly disturbed by grading for a housing project and the equipment storage area.
In 1966, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from site CA-MRN-26, in Tiburon, Marin County, CA, during a salvage project by archeologist John McBeth. The human remains are 17 fragments found in an isolated box. In the 1970s, most of the human remains from this site were transferred to San Francisco State University. The additional human remains discussed in this notice were discovered during the evaluation of the archeological collection between 2012 and 2014. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Site CA-MRN-26 is within the traditional area of the Coast Miwok Indians. It is estimated that the Miwok occupied the area for over 3000 years, though perhaps not continuously. The economy of the area was based on marsh resources with hunting and gathering in this North Coast Range area
Prior to 1967, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site CA-MRN-366, in Novato, Marin County, CA, in an eroded area of the creek. The human remains are a small skull fragment donated to the museum in 1967. No known individuals are present. No associated funerary objects are present.
Site CA-MRN-366 is within the traditional area of the Coast Miwok Indians. It is estimated that the Miwok occupied the area for over 3000 years, though perhaps not continuously. The economy of the area was based on marsh resources with hunting and gathering in this North Coast Range area. The semi-permanent village usually had several family groups that migrated to other seasonal camps throughout the growing season.
Prior to 1967, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Old Post Office site in Novato, Marin County, CA. The human remains are two fragments donated to the museum in 1967. No known individuals are present. No associated funerary objects are present.
The Old Post Office site is within the traditional area of the Coast Miwok Indians. It is estimated that the Miwok occupied the area for over 3000 years, though perhaps not continuously. The economy of the area was based on marsh resources with hunting and gathering in this North Coast Range area.
The Coast Miwok Indians are represented today by the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California.
Officials of the Museum of the American Indian have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 15 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Colleen Hicks, Museum of the American Indian, P.O. Box 864, Novato, CA 94948, telephone (415) 897-4064, fax (415) 892-7804, email
The Museum of the American Indian is responsible for notifying the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California, that this notice has been published.
The Legal Services Corporation's Board of Directors and its six committees will meet July 17-19, 2016. On Sunday, July 17, the first meeting will commence at 1:30 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), with the meeting thereafter commencing promptly upon adjournment of the immediately preceding meeting. On Monday, July 18, the first meeting will commence at 8:30 a.m., EDT, with the next meeting commencing promptly upon adjournment of the immediately preceding meeting. On Tuesday, July 19,
The Hilton Burlington Hotel, 60 Battery Street, Burlington, Vermont 05401.
• Call toll-free number: 1-866-451-4981;
• When prompted, enter the following numeric pass code: 5907707348
• When connected to the call, please immediately “MUTE” your telephone.
Members of the public are asked to keep their telephones muted to eliminate background noises. To avoid disrupting the meeting, please refrain from placing the call on hold if doing so will trigger recorded music or other sound. From time to time, the presiding Chair may solicit comments from the public.
* Please note that all times in this notice are in
Open, except as noted below.
Board of Directors—Open, except that, upon a vote of the Board of Directors, a portion of the meeting may be closed to the public to hear briefings by management and LSC's Inspector General, and to consider and act on the General Counsel's report on potential and pending litigation involving LSC, and on a list of prospective funders.**
** Any portion of the closed session consisting solely of briefings does not fall within the Sunshine Act's definition of the term “meeting” and, therefore, the requirements of the Sunshine Act do not apply to such portion of the closed session. 5 U.S.C. 552b(a)(2) and (b).
Audit Committee—Open, except that the meeting may be closed to the public to hear a briefing on the Office of Compliance and Enforcement's active enforcement matters, and a report on the integrity of electronic data. **
Institutional Advancement Committee—Open, except that the meeting may be closed to the public to discuss recommendation of new prospective donors.**
Governance and Performance Review Committee—Open, except that the meeting may be closed to the public to discuss transition planning.**
A verbatim written transcript will be made of the closed session of the Board, Institutional Advancement Committee, Audit Committee, and Governance and Performance Review Committee. The transcript of any portions of the closed sessions falling within the relevant provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (10), will not be available for public inspection. A copy of the General Counsel's Certification that, in his opinion, the closing is authorized by law will be available upon request.
Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President & General Counsel, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may be sent by electronic mail to
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Heliophysics Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Subcommittee reports to the Science Committee of the NAC. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Monday, August 8, 2016, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; and Tuesday, August 9, 2016, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, Room 6H41, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546.
Ms. Ann Delo, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0750, fax (202) 358-2779, or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. This meeting will also be available telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any person interested in joining the meeting may dial the USA toll free conference call number 1-888-810-8156, and then the numeric participant passcode: 2158644 followed by the # sign, for both days. If dialing in, please “mute” your phone. The WebEx link is
Attendees will be required to sign a register and comply with NASA Headquarters security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID before receiving access to NASA Headquarters. Due to the Real ID Act, Public Law 109-13, any attendees with driver's licenses issued from non-compliant states/territories must present a second form of ID. [Federal employee badge; passport; active military identification card; enhanced driver's license; U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card; Native American tribal document; school identification accompanied by an item from LIST C (documents that establish employment authorization) from the “List of the Acceptable Documents” on Form I-9.] Non-compliant states/territories are: American Samoa, Minnesota, Missouri and Washington. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 working days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; passport information (number, country, telephone); visa information (number, type, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee. To expedite admittance, attendees with U.S. citizenship and Permanent
The Members of the National Council on Disability (NCD) will hold a quarterly meeting on Thursday, July 28, 2016, 9 a.m.—4:15 p.m. (Central Time), and on Friday, July 29, 2016, 9 a.m.—12:30 p.m. (Central Time) in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
This meeting will occur in the Bergen I Meeting Room, Radisson Blu Downtown Minneapolis at 35 South 7th Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402. Interested parties are welcome to join in person or by phone in a listening-only capacity (other than the period allotted for public comment noted below) using the following call-in number: 888-510-1765; Conference ID: 5785469; Conference Title: NCD Meeting; Host Name: Clyde Terry.
The Council will receive an update on the mental health in postsecondary education report; as well as hear policy presentations on the topics of the connection between disability and poverty; economic mobility gridlock for people with disabilities; the direct care workforce; and what a system designed to help people with disabilities out of poverty would look like. The Council will receive public comment during three town halls, on the topics of disability and poverty; economic mobility gridlock for people with disabilities; and what a system designed to help people with disabilities out of poverty would look like. The Council will also receive reports from its standing committees; and discuss policy priorities for the next fiscal year. The Council is expected to vote on a final draft of the 2016 Progress Report as well as its slate of policy priorities for the next fiscal year.
Those who plan to attend the meeting in-person and require accommodations should notify NCD as soon as possible to allow time to make arrangements. To help reduce exposure to fragrances for those with multiple chemical sensitivities, NCD requests that all those attending the meeting in person refrain from wearing scented personal care products such as perfumes, hairsprays, and deodorants.
Anne Sommers, NCD, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004; 202-272-2004 (V), 202-272-2074 (TTY).
Section 20 U.S.C. 955 (f) of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 951
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended (Pub. L. 92-463), governs the formation, use, conduct, management, and accessibility to the public of committees formed to advise and assist the Federal Government. Section 10 of that Act directs meetings of advisory committees to be open to the public, except where the head of the
It is the policy of the National Endowment for the Arts that meetings of the National Council on the Arts be conducted in open session including those parts during which recommendations for funding are considered. However, in recognition that the National Endowment for the Arts is required to consider the artistic excellence and artistic merit of applications for financial assistance and that consideration of individual applications may require a discussion of matters such as an individual artist's abilities, reputation among colleagues, or professional background and performance, I have determined to reserve the right to close limited portions of Council meetings if such information is to be discussed. The purpose of the closure is to protect information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Closure for this purpose is authorized by subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
Additionally, the Council will consider prospective nominees for the National Medal of Arts award in order to advise the President of the United States in his final selection of National Medal of Arts recipients. During these sessions, similar information of a personal nature will be discussed. As with applications for financial assistance, disclosure of this information about individuals who are under consideration for the award would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Therefore, in light of the above, I have determined that those portions of Council meetings devoted to consideration of prospective nominees for the National Medal of Arts award may be closed to the public. Closure for these purposes is authorized by subsections (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
All other portions of the meetings of the National Council on the Arts shall be open to the public unless the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts or a designee determines otherwise in accordance with section 10(d) of the Act.
Further, in accordance with the FACA, the Panel Coordinator shall be responsible for publication in the
1. Name of the committee and its purposes;
2. Date and time of the meeting, and, if the meeting is open to the public, its location and agenda; and
3. A statement that the meeting is open to the public, or, if the meeting or any portion thereof is not to be open to the public, a statement to that effect.
A record shall be maintained of any closed portion of the Council meeting.
The Office of the Chief of Staff is designated as the office from which lists of committee members may be obtained and from whom minutes of open meetings or open portions thereof may be requested. On July 5, 2016, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts Jane Chu, approved the determination to close the meetings.
Section 20 U.S.C. 959(c) of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 951
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended (Pub. L. 92-463), governs the formation, use, conduct, management, and accessibility to the public of committees formed to advise and assist the Federal Government. Section 10 of that Act directs meetings of advisory committees to be open to the public, except where the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports determines in writing that a portion of a meeting may be closed to the public consistent with subsection (c) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code (the Government in the Sunshine Act).
It is the policy of the National Endowment for the Arts to make the fullest possible disclosure of records to the public, limited only by obligations of confidentiality and administrative necessity. In recognition that the National Endowment for the Arts is required to consider the artistic excellence and artistic merit of applications for financial assistance and that consideration of individual applications may require a discussion of matters such as an individual artist's abilities, reputation among colleagues, or professional background and performance, I have determined to reserve the right to close the portions of advisory committee meetings involving the review, discussion, evaluation, and ranking of grant applications. The purpose of the closure is to protect information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Closure for this purpose is authorized by subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
All other portions of the meetings of these advisory committees shall be open to the public unless the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts or a designee determines otherwise in accordance with section 10(d) of the Act.
Further, in accordance with FACA, the Panel Coordinator shall be responsible for publication in the
1. Name of the committee and its purposes;
2. Date and time of the meeting, and, if the meeting is open to the public, its location and agenda; and
3. A statement that the meeting is open to the public, or, if the meeting or any portion thereof is not to be open to the public, a statement to that effect.
A record shall be maintained of any closed portions of panel meetings.
The Panel Coordinator is designated as the person from whom lists of committee members may be obtained and from whom minutes of open meetings or open portions thereof may be requested. On July 5, 2016, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts Jane Chu, approved the determination to close the meetings.
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.
Notice of meetings.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that three meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference.
All meetings are Eastern time and ending times are approximate:
National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC, 20506.
Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC, 20506;
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of July 5, 2016, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.
National Science Foundation.
Notice and request for comments.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to request clearance of this collection. In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting that OMB approve clearance of this collection for no longer than three years.
Written comments on this notice must be received by September 12, 2016 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Contact Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230; telephone (703) 292-7556; or send email to
PREEVENTS is intended to encourage new scientific directions in the domains of natural hazards and extreme events. PREEVENTS will consider proposals for conferences that will foster development of interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary communities required to address complex questions surrounding natural hazards and extreme events. Such proposals are called PREEVENTS Track 1 proposals.
In addition to standard NSF annual and final report requirements, PIs for all PREEVENTS Track 1 awards will be required to submit to NSF a public report that summarizes the conference activities, attendance, and outcomes; describes scientific and/or technical challenges that remain to be overcome in the areas discussed during the conference; and identifies specific next steps to advance knowledge in the areas of natural hazards and extreme events that were considered during the conference. These reports will be made publicly available via the NSF Web site, and are intended to foster nascent interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary communities and to enable growth of new scientific directions.
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the
NSF 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.
The second comment came from Jason Owen-Smith, Executive Director, Institute for Research on Innovation & Science (IRIS) at the University of Michigan. He expressed support for the survey and asked NSF to consider linking the administrative data maintained by IRIS into the HERD survey data to increase the survey data's utility. NSF is very interested in the administrative data maintained by IRIS and was an active participant in the Star Metrics project (predecessor of UMetrics). We will contact Dr. Owen-Smith to discuss the possibilities for data linking in the coming year.
The third comment came from Marc Kastner, President of the Science Philanthropy Alliance. He expressed support for the survey and requested more data on the amount of funding devoted to basic research versus applied research. Currently the survey does measure the split between basic research, applied research and experimental development by overall federal and nonfederal totals. We have no plans to expand the survey to obtain this split by all sources of funding or field due to the burden that would place on universities in responding to the survey.
A fourth comment came from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). They expressed general support for the survey and requested a few additional data elements to be considered for future collection. NSF is in regular contact with BEA about their data needs and the feasibility of adding questions to the HERD or FFRDC Surveys to address these needs. As part of the survey redesign, NSF added several items requested by BEA to the questionnaire, where the additional detail posed no significant increase in burden for the institutions. NSF will continue to consider additional items in future years while still prioritizing respondent burden. There are no plans to incorporate these data items on the HERD or FFRDC Surveys for FY 2016.
(A) research and development trends;
(B) the science and engineering workforce;
(C) U.S. competitiveness in science, engineering, technology, and research and development. . .”
Data are published in NSF's annual publication series
The average burden estimate is 1 hour for the approximately 150 institutions responding to the population screener form, 55 hours for the approximately 700 institutions reporting over $1 million in R&D expenditures on the standard form, 8 hours for the approximately 300 institutions reporting less than $1 million on the short form, and 12 hours for the 42 organizations completing the FFRDC survey. The total calculated burden across all forms is 40,812 hours.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 14.11(d) in order to add the EURO STOXX 50® Volatility (VSTOXX®) Futures (“VSTOXX Futures”) to the definition of Futures Reference Asset.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Commission has approved the listing of debt securities known as Linked Securities
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 14.11(d) in order to add VSTOXX Futures to the definition of Futures Reference Asset, which would allow the Exchange to list Futures-Linked Securities linked to VSTOXX Futures through generic listing standards pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under BZX Rule 14.11(d)(2)(K)(iv).
Rule 14.11(d)(2)(K)(iv)(a) requires that a Futures-Linked Security meet one of the following standards: (1) That the Futures Reference Asset to which the security is linked shall have been reviewed and approved for the trading of Futures-Linked Securities or options or other derivatives by the Commission under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act and rules thereunder and the conditions set forth in the Commission's approval order, including with respect to comprehensive surveillance sharing agreements, continue to be satisfied; or (2) the pricing information for components of a Futures Reference Asset must be derived from a market which is a member or affiliate of a member of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) or a market with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement (“CSSA”).
Further, any Futures-Linked Securities linked to VSTOXX Futures would also be required to meet both the initial and continued listing standards under Rule 14.11(d)(2)(K)(iv)(b) and (c) or be subject to delisting or removal proceedings, which include: (i) That the value of the Futures Reference Asset be calculated and widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Exchange's regular market session; (ii) for Futures-Linked Securities that are periodically redeemable, the Intraday Indicative Value of the securities must be calculated and widely disseminated by the Exchange or one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Exchange's regular market session; (iii) the aggregate market value or the principal amount of the Futures-Linked Securities must be at least $400,000; (iv) the value of the VSTOXX Futures must be calculated and available; and (v) any other event occurs or condition exists which in the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealings on the Exchange inadvisable. Any Futures-Linked Securities linked to VSTOXX Futures would also be required to meet the listing standards applicable to all Linked Securities under 14.11(d)(2). Finally, all Linked Securities listed pursuant to Rule 14.11(d) are included within the definition of “security” or “securities” as such terms are used in the Rules of the Exchange and, as such, are subject to the full panoply of Exchange Rules and procedures that currently govern the trading of securities on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed standards would continue to ensure transparency surrounding the listing process for Linked Securities. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the existing standards for listing and trading Futures-Linked Securities are reasonably designed to promote a fair and orderly market for such Futures-Linked Securities and the addition of VSTOXX Futures to Futures Reference Assets does not affect this. The proposed addition of VSTOXX Futures to those instruments included in Futures Reference Assets would also work in conjunction with the existing initial and continued listing criteria related to surveillance procedures and trading guidelines.
The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to continue to properly monitor the trading of the Futures-Linked Securities linked to VSTOXX Futures in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules. Specifically, the Exchange intends to utilize its existing surveillance procedures applicable to derivative products, which includes Linked Securities, to monitor trading in the Futures-Linked Securities. The issuer of a series of Linked Securities is and will continue to be required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act for the initial and continued listing of Linked Securities, as provided under Rule 14.11(d)(2)(F). The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not intended to amend any other component or requirement of Rule 14.11(d).
The information in this filing relating to the VSTOXX was taken from the Web site of STOXX Limited (“STOXX”). The VSTOXX was originally developed by STOXX in 2005 and is based on EURO STOXX 50 Index real-time option prices that are listed on the Eurex Deutschland (“Eurex”) and are designed to reflect the market expectations of near-term up to long-term volatility by measuring the square root of the implied variances across all options of a given time to expiration. The EURO STOXX 50 Index, Europe's leading Blue-chip index for the Eurozone, provides a blue-chip representation of super sector leaders in the Eurozone. The index covers 50 stocks from 12 Eurozone countries: Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.
The model for VSTOXX aims at making pure volatility tradable—
STOXX will compute the index on a real-time basis throughout each trading day, from 8:50 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. Central European Time (“CET”) (3:50 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time (“ET”)). VSTOXX levels will be calculated by STOXX and disseminated by major market data vendors such as Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters.
Additional information regarding the VSTOXX Futures can be found on the Eurex Web site. Eurex
The monthly volume and open interest, in USD, as of the last day of each month in 2015 for the VSTOXX Futures was as follows:
Both in the numbers shown above and throughout the history of VSTOXX Futures, the monthly trading volume and open interest in VSTOXX Futures has, subject to natural fluctuation in the market, continued to grow. The Exchange notes that the monthly trading volume in the VSTOXX Futures is very similar to the trading volume of the CBOE Volatility Index® (VIX®) Futures prior to NYSE Arca, Inc. adding the VIX Futures to the definition of futures reference asset in its comparable rule,
As such, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to add VSTOXX Futures as an underlying Futures Reference asset will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional Futures-Linked Security that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of additional types of Futures-Linked Securities that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in Futures-Linked Securities and may obtain information regarding both the Futures-Linked Securities and VSTOXX Futures via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information on an intraday basis regarding: (i) The value of the Futures Reference Asset, which will be calculated and widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Exchange's regular market session; (ii) for Futures-Linked Securities that are periodically redeemable, the Intraday Indicative Value of the securities, which must be calculated and widely disseminated by the Exchange or one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Exchange's regular market session; and (iii) information regarding market price and trading of Futures-Linked Securities will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services, and quotation and last sale information for the securities will be available on the facilities of the CTA.
Further, any Futures-Linked Securities linked to VSTOXX Futures would be required to meet both the initial and continued listing standards, including certain of those named above, under Rule 14.11(d)(2)(K)(iv)(b) and (c) or be subject to delisting or removal proceedings, which include: (i) That the value of the Futures Reference Asset be calculated and widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Exchange's regular market session; (ii) for Futures-Linked Securities that are periodically redeemable, the Intraday Indicative Value of the securities must be calculated and widely disseminated by the Exchange or one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Exchange's regular market session; (iii) the aggregate market value or the principal amount of the Futures-Linked Securities must be at least $400,000; (iv) the value of the VSTOXX Futures must be calculated and available; and (v) any other event occurs or condition exists which in the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealings on the Exchange inadvisable. Any Futures-Linked Securities linked to VSTOXX Futures would also be required to meet the listing standards applicable to all Linked Securities under 14.11(d)(2). Finally, all Linked Securities listed pursuant to Rule 14.11(d) are included within the definition of “security” or “securities” as such terms are used in the Rules of the Exchange and, as such, are subject to the full panoply of Exchange Rules and procedures that currently govern the trading of securities on the Exchange. Additionally, trading in the securities will be halted under the conditions specified in BZX Rule 11.18. Trading may also be halted because of market conditions, for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the
As noted above, both in the context presented herein and throughout the history of VSTOXX Futures, the monthly trading volume and open interest in VSTOXX Futures has, subject to natural fluctuation in the market, continued to grow. The Exchange notes that the monthly trading volume in the VSTOXX Futures is very similar to the trading volume of the CBOE Volatility Index® (VIX®) Futures prior to NYSE Arca, Inc. adding the VIX Futures to the definition of futures reference asset in its comparable rule,
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would facilitate the listing and trading of additional types of Futures-Linked Securities, which will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace and provide investors with the ability to better diversify and hedge their portfolios using an exchange listed security without having to trade directly in the underlying futures contracts. The Exchange believes that this would reduce the time frame for bringing Futures-Linked Securities linked to the VSTOXX Futures to market, thereby reducing the burdens on issuers and other market participants and promoting competition.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 4120 and the BX process for commencing trading of a security that is the subject of a trading halt.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
BX is proposing to make a minor modification to the BX process for commencing trading of a security that is the subject of a trading halt. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to modify the way in which orders are accepted prior to the commencement of trading for securities subject to a trading halt. This change will simplify the order submission operations for market participants during trading halts.
Currently, BX Rule 4120(c)(4)(B) provides that during any trading halt or pause, market participants may enter orders during the trading halt or pause and designate such orders to be held until the termination of the trading halt or pause. Under this rule, such orders will be held in a suspended state until the termination of the halt or pause, at which time they will be entered into the system. The Exchange proposes that Rule 4120(c)(4)(B) be revised to simply state that orders entered during any trading halt or pause will not be accepted.
The implementation of the existing functionality for accepting orders prior to the Exchange releasing the security for trading has not been widely used and the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will both improve and simplify the Exchange process for market participants. The Exchange will issue an Equity Trader Alert notifying Exchange member firms of the change prior to implementation on July 11, 2016.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system through an improved and simplified Exchange process for commencing trading of a security that is the subject of a trading halt. Specifically, this will be accomplished by revising Exchange Rule 4120(c)(4)(B) to simply state that orders entered during any trading halt or pause will not be accepted.
The current functionality for accepting orders prior to the Exchange releasing the security for trading is used infrequently and consequently the proposed rule change will have little impact on customers. To the extent that there is any impact, it will be that rejecting orders rather than holding them in a suspended state will clarify the state of participant orders, thereby reducing potential confusion. The implementation of the existing functionality for accepting orders prior to the Exchange releasing the security for trading has not been widely used and the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will both improve and simplify the Exchange process for market participants.
The proposed rule change also will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market through competition. Specifically, the proposed rule change will enhance competition by increasing the Exchange's attractiveness as a venue for trading securities because, as stated above, it will both improve and simplify the Exchange process for market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will result in an improved and simplified process for market participants, which in turn will reduce potential confusion during important market events. The Exchange believes that this change will enhance competition by increasing its attractiveness as a venue for trading securities.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b4(f)(6) thereunder.
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30-days from the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange proposes to modify the way in which orders are accepted prior to the commencement of trading for securities that are subject to a trading halt. The Exchange notes that the current functionality for accepting orders prior to the Exchange releasing the security for trading is used infrequently and therefore the proposed rule change will have little impact on its customers. Further, the Commission does not believe that the proposed rule change raises any new or novel issues. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List for equity transactions in stocks with a per share stock price more than $1.00 to revise: (1) Certain fees for executions at the close; and (2) the requirements for credits related to executions of orders sent to Floor brokers that add liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange also proposes to amend its Price List to revise its trading license fees. The Exchange proposes to implement these changes to its Price List effective July 1, 2016. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below,
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to revise: (1) Certain fees for executions at the close; (2) the requirements for credits related to executions of orders sent to Floor brokers that add liquidity on the Exchange; and (3) trading license fees.
The proposed changes would only apply to credits in transactions in securities priced $1.00 or more.
The Exchange proposes to implement these changes effective July 1, 2016.
Currently, member organizations that execute during the billing month average daily volume (“ADV”) of at least 750,000 shares through orders executed at the close (except for market at-the-close (“MOC”) and limit at-the-close (“LOC”) orders), and/or Floor broker executions swept into the close (excluding verbal interest), are charged $0.00035 per share for such orders.
The Exchange proposes to increase this fee to $0.0005 per share. The fee would apply only to shares executed in excess of 750,000 ADV during the billing month. For example, a member organization that has an ADV of 3 million shares during a billing month consisting of 20 trading days would pay $0.0005 per share fee on the 2.25 million shares that exceed 750,000 on average each day. For the 20 trading days, this would be a total of 45 million shares for that month, and a total fee of $22,500.
Member organizations with execution volumes below an ADV of 750,000 shares during the billing month would continue not to be charged for these trades.
Further, for Non-Tier MOC/LOC, the Exchange currently charges member organizations $0.0010 per share for MOC and LOC orders, unless a member organization meets specified thresholds set forth in the Price List for MOC and LOC activity. The Exchange proposes to increase this fee to $0.0011 per share.
For MOC/LOC Tier 2, the Exchange currently charges $0.00070 per share for all MOC and LOC orders from any member organization executing (i) an ADV of MOC and LOC activity on the Exchange in the month of at least 0.375% of consolidated ADV (“CADV”) in NYSE-listed securities during the billing month (“NYSE CADV”); or (ii) an ADV of MOC and LOC activity on the Exchange in that month of at least 0.300% of NYSE CADV plus an ADV of total close activity (
For MOC/LOC Tier 1, the Exchange currently charges $0.00060 per share for all MOC and LOC orders from any member organization executing ADV of MOC and LOC activity on the NYSE in that month of at least 0.575% of NYSE CADV. The Exchange proposes to increase this fee to $0.0007 per share.
The Exchange currently provides a per share credit for executions of orders sent to a Floor broker for representation on the Exchange when adding liquidity to the Exchange if the member organization has an ADV that adds liquidity to the Exchange by a Floor broker during the billing month that is at least equal to certain thresholds. The first threshold is 2,500,000 shares ADV in order to qualify for the existing credit of $0.0020 per share. The second threshold is 12,000,000 shares ADV in order to qualify for the existing credit of $0.0022 per share.
The Exchange proposes to replace the current share volume ADV thresholds for these credits with thresholds representing a percentage of CADV. More specifically, in order to qualify for the first credit of $0.0020 per share, the Exchange proposes that a member organization have an ADV that adds liquidity to the Exchange by a Floor broker during the billing month that is at least equal to .07% of CADV. Second, in order to qualify for the credit of $0.0022 per share, the Exchange proposes that a member organization have an ADV that a 1200dds liquidity to the Exchange by a Floor broker during the billing month that is at least equal to .33% of CADV. The Exchange believes thresholds representing a percentage of CADV rather than a fixed share volume requirement, is more appropriate because it would reasonably require that the monthly volume requirement is consistent relative to fluctuations in market volume over time.
NYSE Rule 300(b) provides, among other things, that the price per trading license will be published each year in the Exchange's price list. The current trading license fee in place for 2016
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee increases for certain executions at the close are reasonable. The Exchange's closing auction is a recognized industry benchmark,
The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to modify fees for executions at the close (other than MOC and LOC orders) and Floor broker executions swept into the close (excluding Verbal Interest) for member organizations that execute an ADV of at least 750,000 of such executions on a combined basis, by increasing the
The Exchange believes that increasing the MOC/LOC Non-Tier fee to $0.0011 is reasonable because this rate would be lower than the non-tier rate, Tier F, for market-on-close and limit-on-close orders on NASDAQ, of $0.0015 per executed share.
The Exchange believes that maintaining the lowest comparable fee for the highest liquidity requirements would incentivize member organizations to send in more closing auction volume to the primary market, thereby deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool and supporting the quality of price discovery. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge lower or equal fees to member organizations that make significant contributions to market quality by providing higher volumes of liquidity, which benefits all market participants. The Exchange believes the proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all similarly situated member organizations would be subject to the same fee structure.
The Exchange believes that the changes proposed to the tiered credits for executions of orders sent to a Floor broker for representation on the Exchange are reasonable because they would encourage additional displayed liquidity on the Exchange. The proposed change would also encourage the execution of such transactions on a public exchange, thereby promoting price discovery and transparency.
The Exchange believes the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would continue to encourage member organizations to send orders to the Floor for execution, thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity on the Floor, which benefits all market participants. The proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because those member organizations that make significant contributions to market quality and that contribute to price discovery by providing higher volumes of liquidity would continue to be allocated a higher credit. The Exchange believes that any member organizations that may currently be qualifying under the existing thresholds could qualify for the remaining two thresholds based on the levels of activity sent to Floor brokers. The proposed change also is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all similarly situated member organizations would pay the same rate, as is currently the case, and because all member organizations would be eligible to qualify for the rate by satisfying the related thresholds.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed change promotes just and equitable principles of trade because, by basing the monthly volume requirement on a percentage of NYSE CADV, the Floor broker requirement to add liquidity to the market would track actual consolidated trading volumes. Accordingly, in months with lower trading volumes, a monthly volume requirement that tracks the actual consolidated volume would reasonably require that Floor brokers add sufficient liquidity relative to the market, without the monthly volume requirement being too burdensome for them. Conversely, during months when trading volumes are generally higher across all markets, the proposed change would result in Floor brokers being required to increase the liquidity they add to the market, thereby reasonably requiring that Floor brokers are engaging in meaningful trading activity consistent with the purpose of the Floor broker credits for adding liquidity to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to eliminate the $15,000 fee for each additional license held by a member organization above the first license is reasonable because it will encourage member organizations to hold additional trading licenses, which will increase the number of market participants trading on the floor of the Exchange, which will promote liquidity, price discovery, and the opportunity for price improvement for the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange also believes it is reasonable to offer a fee reduction because it will provide member organizations with greater flexibility in managing their personnel, especially during times of increased volatility and in summer months when member organizations tend to experience greater staff rotation. The Exchange believes the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all similarly situated member organizations would continue to be subject to the same trading license fee structure and because access to the Exchange's market would continue to be offered on fair and non-discriminatory terms.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of member organizations or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in Sunshine Act, Public Law 99-409, the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, July 13, 2016, at 10 a.m. in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
The discussion agenda for the Open Meeting will be:
• The Commission will consider whether to adopt certain amendments and issue guidance relating to Regulation SBSR under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
• The Commission will consider whether to propose amendments to rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding disclosure of order handling information.
• The Commission will consider whether to propose amendments to address redundant, duplicative, overlapping, outdated, or superseded disclosure requirements.
The summary agenda for the Open Meeting will be:
• The Commission will vote on amendments to its Rules of Practice regarding administrative proceedings.
Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Open Meeting in open session, and determined that Commission business required consideration earlier than one week from today. No earlier notice of this Meeting was practicable.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the schedules of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted, or postponed, please contact: Brent J. Fields in the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 3100 and the Exchange process for commencing trading of a security that is the subject of a trading halt.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to make a minor modification to the Exchange process for commencing trading of a security that is the subject of a trading halt. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to modify the way in which orders are accepted prior to the commencement of trading for securities subject to a trading halt. This change will simplify the order submission operations for market participants during trading halts.
Currently, Exchange Rule 3100(c)(3)(B) provides that during any trading halt or pause, market participants may enter orders during the trading halt or pause and designate such orders to be held until the termination of the trading halt or pause. Under this rule, such orders will be held in a suspended state until the termination of the halt or pause, at which time they will be entered into the system. The Exchange proposes that Rule 3100(c)(3)(B) be revised to simply state that orders entered during any trading halt or pause will not be accepted.
The implementation of the existing functionality for accepting orders prior to the Exchange releasing the security for trading has not been widely used and the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will both improve and simplify the Exchange process for market participants. The Exchange will issue an Equity Trader Alert notifying Exchange member firms of the change prior to implementation on July 11, 2016.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system through an improved and simplified Exchange process for commencing trading of a security that is the subject of a trading halt. Specifically, this will be accomplished by revising Exchange Rule 3100(c)(3)(B) to simply state that orders entered during any trading halt or pause will not be accepted.
The current functionality for accepting orders prior to the Exchange releasing the security for trading is used infrequently and consequently the proposed rule change will have little impact on customers. To the extent that there is any impact, it will be that rejecting orders rather than holding them in a suspended state will clarify the state of participant orders, thereby reducing potential confusion. The implementation of the existing functionality for accepting orders prior to the Exchange releasing the security for trading has not been widely used and the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will both improve and simplify the Exchange process for market participants.
The proposed rule change also will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market through competition. Specifically, the proposed rule change will enhance competition by increasing the Exchange's attractiveness as a venue for trading securities because, as stated above, it will both improve and simplify the Exchange process for market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will result in an improved and simplified process for market participants, which in turn will reduce potential confusion during important market events. The Exchange believes that this change will enhance competition by increasing its
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30-days from the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange proposes to modify the way in which orders are accepted prior to the commencement of trading for securities that are subject to a trading halt. The Exchange notes that the current functionality for accepting orders prior to the Exchange releasing the security for trading is used infrequently and therefore the proposed rule change will have little impact on its customers. Further, the Commission does not believe that the proposed rule change raises any new or novel issues. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Adjudicatory matters;
Opinion; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules related to execution and priority. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change amends C2's execution and priority rules to more accurately reflect current System functionality and make other technical and nonsubstantive changes. First, the proposed rule change amends Rule 6.12(a) to provide the price-time and pro rata priority algorithms apply to orders and quotes. The current rule text states these trading priority allocations apply only to orders; however, the System applies these rules of trading priority to resting orders and quotes, which is consistent with the Exchange's intention and, the Exchange believes, Participants' expectations.
Second, the proposed rule change amends Rule 6.12(a)(2) to add detail regarding how the System distributes contracts pursuant to the pro-rata algorithm and rounds fractions of contracts. Current Rule 6.12(a)(2) states resting orders are prioritized according to price, and if there are two or more orders at the best price, then trades are allocated proportionally according to size (in a pro rata fashion). Executable quantity is allocated to the nearest whole number, with fractions
The proposed rule change amends this provision to state if there are two or more resting orders or quotes at the best price, then the System allocates contracts from an incoming order or quote to resting orders and quotes sequentially in the order in which the System received them (
•
•
•
Third, the proposed rule change amends Rule 6.12(a)(3)(B) to delete subparagraphs (i) through (iv) (as well as the introductory sentence to those subparagraphs, as it is no longer necessary with the deletion of the listed items). Currently, subparagraph (B) states when allocating the participation right of a Preferred Market-Maker (“PMM”) or Designated Primary Market-Maker (“DPM”) pursuant to Rule 8.13 or 8.19, respectively, the following apply:
• To be entitled to their participation right, a PMM's or DPM's order and/or quote must be at the best price on the Exchange (
• a PMM or DPM may not be allocated a total quantity greater than the quantity that it is quoting (including orders not part of quotes) at that price.
• in establishing the counterparties to a particular trade, the PMM's or DPM's participation right must first be counted against the PMM's or DPM's, as applicable, highest priority bids or offers.
• the participation right shall only apply to any remaining balance of an order once all higher priorities are satisfied.
Each of these four conditions must be satisfied in order for a PMM or DPM to receive a participation right, and that will continue to be the case. However, the first, second and fourth condition are all included in Rules 8.13 and 8.19 regarding PMM and DPM participation rights, respectively.
Additionally, subparagraph (iii) states in establishing the counterparties to a particular trade, the participation entitlement must first be counted against the PMM's or DPM's, as applicable, highest priority bids or offers. For a PMM or DPM to receive an entitlement, it must have a quote at the BBO. A Market-Maker firm may have multiple individual Market-Makers submitting quotes within a class. An entitlement will apply to a PMM's or DPM's quotes with highest priority (
Fourth, the proposed rule change amends Rules 8.13(c) and 8.19(b)(2) related to the participation rights of PMMs and DPMs. Currently, Rule 8.13(c) and 8.19(b)(2) each provide that a PMM or DPM participation entitlement, respectively, is 50% if there is one other Market-Maker also quoting at the BBO and 40% if there are two or more Market-Makers also quoting at the BBO. The proposed rule change provides that each of the PMM and DPM participation entitlement is based on both the number of Market-Maker quotes and non-public customer orders (including orders of professionals and voluntary professionals)
The proposed rule change also provides that the participation entitlement will be the greater of the amount the PMM or DPM, as applicable, would otherwise receive pursuant to the algorithm applicable to the class and 40% when there are two or more other Market-Maker quotes or non-Public Customer orders at the BBO or 50% when there is only one other Market-maker quote or non-Public Customer order at the BBO, but no fewer than one contract.
With respect to the proposed change stating a PMM or DPM, as applicable, may receive no fewer than one contract pursuant to the participation entitlement, because fractions of contracts of less than
Fifth, the Exchange proposes to update Rule 6.12(c) regarding the priority of contingency orders. Currently, Rule 6.12(c) states, regardless of the allocation method in place, contingency orders (except elected stop-limit orders and the displayed portion of a reserve order) are placed last in priority order, regardless of when they were entered into the System. A contingency order that was entered before a limit order for the same security at the same price will be treated as if it were entered after the limit order. If public customer priority is afforded to a particular security, public customer contingency orders will have priority over non-public customer contingency orders but behind all other orders.
The Exchange proposes to replace that provision to add more detail regarding the prioritization of contingency orders. Proposed Rule 6.12(c) states once a certain event or trading condition satisfies an order's contingency, an order is no longer a contingency order and is treated as a market or limit order (as applicable), prioritized in the same manner as any other market or limit order based on the time it enters the book following satisfaction of the contingency (
Notwithstanding the foregoing, under any algorithm in Rule 6.12
(1) Upon receipt of a reserve order, the System displays in the book any initially display-eligible portion of the reserve order, which is prioritized in the same manner as any other order (
(2) Immediate-or-cancel and fill-or-kill orders are not placed in the book and thus are not prioritized with respect to other resting orders and quotes in the book (by definition, those types of orders are cancelled if they do not execute as soon as they are represented on the Exchange so have no opportunity to rest in the book). These orders execute against resting orders and quotes in the book based on the time the System receives them (
(3) all-or-none orders are always last in priority (including after the undisplayed portions of reserve orders). If the Exchange applies public customer priority to a class, orders trade in the following order: (A) Public customer orders other than all-or-none, (B) non-public customer orders other than all-or-none and quotes, (C) public customer all-or-none orders (in time sequence), and (D) non-public customer all-or-none orders (in time sequence). If the Exchange applies pro-rata with no public customer priority or price-time to a class, orders trade in the following order: (A) orders other than all-or-none and quotes, and (B) all-or-none orders (in time sequence).
The Exchange believes this provision is consistent with the definitions of these order types, pursuant to which most contingency orders become market or limit orders once the contingency is satisfied. All-or-none orders must always be last in priority to ensure that there is sufficient size to satisfy the condition of such an order to trade in its entirety after all other orders at the same price have executed. Additionally, the Exchange believes it is reasonable for orders that are not displayed in the book to not receive priority over orders that are displayed, as they are not yet eligible for execution until they become displayed. These provisions are consistent with current System functionality and are merely adding more detail to the rules to provide additional transparency regarding allocation and priority principles for investors. These provisions are also consistent with the non-inclusion of all-or-none orders and non-displayed portions of reserve orders in the NBBO.
Sixth, the proposed rule change amends Rule 6.12(e) regarding how modification of an order or quote may change its priority position. The
Finally, the proposed rule change amend Rule 6.12(f) to clarify the meaning of the provision. Current paragraph (f) states unless expressly stated otherwise, any potential price improvement resulting from an execution in the System shall accrue to the party that is removing liquidity previously posted in the System. Proposed paragraph (f) states, unless expressly stated otherwise, any potential price improvement resulting from an execution in the System accrues to the incoming order or quote that removes liquidity previously posted in the System. For example, suppose the market for a series is 1.00 to 1.20. A limit order in that series to buy for 1.25 enters the System. The System will provide price improvement to that incoming order and execute the order against the resting offer of 1.20. This is merely a clarification of the rule text and does not change any System functionality.
The proposed rule change makes nonsubstantive changes to Rules 6.12(b)(1), (e) and (h), 6.18(d) and 8.13(c) and Interpretation and Policy .01, including to fix punctuation and use defined terms, plain English, and language consistent with that used in similar rule provisions. In addition, the proposed rule change amends Rule 6.12(b)(1) to provide the Market Turner priority percentage may be reduced on a class-by-class basis rather than series-by-series basis, as the Exchange generally makes this determination for an entire class rather than for specific series.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed rule change amends execution and priority rules to more accurately reflect System functionality, which transparency protects investors and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market. The proposed rule change to provide quotes, in addition to orders, are subject to price-time and pro rata priority promotes just and equitable principles of trade, as resting quotes trade with incoming orders in the same manner as resting orders. The proposed change regarding how the System rounds the number of contracts when they cannot be allocated proportionally in whole numbers pursuant to the pro-rata algorithm adds detail to the rules (which previously only addressed the situation if there one additional contract for two market participants) regarding the allocation process and provides a fair, objective manner for rounding and distribution in all situations in which the number of contracts many not be allocated proportionally in whole numbers. Distributing contracts to resting orders and quotes in time priority when they cannot be allocated proportionally in whole numbers is also consistent with C2's current rules as well as the rules of another options exchange.
The proposed rule change to delete from Rule 6.12 the conditions a PMM or DPM must satisfy to be entitled to a participation right eliminates duplication and confusion, a these conditions are also contained in Rules 8.13 and 8.19, which protects investors. The proposed rule change providing a PMM's or DPM's participation right is determined in part by how many Market-Maker quotes and non-public customer orders are at the BBO is not only consistent with current System functionality but also encourages all Market-Makers, not just Trading Permit Holders, to continue to provide liquidity to the market because it may provide them with the opportunity to participate in a larger portion of a trade in which a PMM or DPM has a participation right (60% v. 50%). PMMs, and DPMs will still be entitled to a significant participation right of 40% or 50%, as applicable, which continues to provide an appropriate balance with their heightened quoting obligations. The proposed rule change to provide a DPM's participation right will be 30% if there are three or more Market-Maker quotes or non-Public Customer orders at the BBO will further promote other market participants to participate in a larger portion of a trade and thus further encourage liquidity from these other market participants, and is also consistent with the rules of another exchange.
The proposed rule changes regarding the priority of contingency orders, modified orders and quotes, and price improvement to incoming orders and quotes eliminate potential confusion, promote just and equitable principles of trade, and thus protect investors and the public interest.
C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is consistent with how the System currently executes and prioritizes orders and quotes and primarily adds detail to the rules regarding current System functionality. Thus, the System will allocate orders and quotes under the proposed rule change in the same manner as it does today. The proposed rule change applies in the same manner to the orders and quotes of all Trading Permit Holders, and the additional transparency in the rules benefits all investors. The proposed rule change applies only to the allocation of orders and quotes in C2's System.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Thursday, July 14, 2016, in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549. The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 9 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at
On June 22, 2016, the Commission issued notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 33-10102), indicating that the meeting is open to the public (except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an administrative work session during lunch), and inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a quorum of the Commission may attend the meeting.
The agenda for the meeting includes: Remarks from Commissioners; a discussion of the state of sustainability reporting; a discussion regarding investment company reporting modernization; and a nonpublic administrative work session during lunch.
For further information, please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 3.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-4273-DR), dated 06/25/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of West Virginia, dated 06/25/2016 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
60-day notice and request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C Chapter 35 requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before September 12, 2016.
Send all comments to Melinda Edwards, Program Analyst, Office of Business Development, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416.
Melinda Edwards, Program Analyst, Business Development,
In accordance with Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 124.403, each 8(a) participant must annually review its business plan with the assigned Business Opportunity Specialist (BOS) and modify the plan, as appropriate, within 30 days after the close of each program year. The Participant must also submit a statement describing its current contract performance capabilities as part of its update business plan. SBA uses the information collected to assess the participant's financial condition and continued eligibility.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations, to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 06/10-0065 issued to Capital Southwest Venture Corp., said license is hereby declared null and void.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 5.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-4269-DR), dated 04/25/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Texas, dated 04/25/2016 is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 07/29/2016.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) up to August 11, 2016.
Direct comments to the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You may submit comments by the following methods:
•
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, by mail to PPT Forms Officer, U.S. Department of State, CA/PPT/S/L/LA, 44132 Mercure Cir, P.O. Box 1227 Sterling, VA 20166-1227, by phone at (202) 485-6373, or by email at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) up to August 11, 2016.
Direct comments to the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You may submit comments by the following methods:
•
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, by mail to PPT Forms Officer, U.S. Department of State, CA/PPT/S/L/LA, 44132 Mercure Cir, P.O. Box 1227 Sterling, VA 20166-1227, by phone at (202) 485-6373, or by email at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before August 1, 2016.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-7151 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Brent Hart (202) 267-4034, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before August 1, 2016.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-2706 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Nia Daniels, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, (202) 267-7626.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before August 1, 2016.
Send comments identified by docket number (FAA-2002-11485) using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Nia Daniels, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, (202) 267-7626.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 44 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were effective on January 14, 2016. The exemptions expire on January 14, 2018.
Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On December 14, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from 44 individuals and requested comments from the public (80 FR 77408). The public comment period closed on January 13, 2016.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 44 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
These 44 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 37 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the December 14, 2015,
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a
Based upon its evaluation of the 44 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above 49 CFR 391.64(b)).
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice; response to public comments.
On January 23, 2015, FMCSA announced the results of the Agency's study on the feasibility of using a motor carrier's role in crashes in the assessment of the company's safety. This study assessed (1) whether Police Accident Reports (PARs) provide sufficient, consistent, and reliable information to support crash weighting determinations; (2) whether a crash weighting determination process would offer an even stronger predictor of crash risk than overall crash involvement and how crash weighting would be implemented in the Agency's Safety Measurement System (SMS); and (3) how FMCSA might manage a process for making crash weighting determinations, including the acceptance of public input.
Based on the feedback received in response to the January 23, 2015, Federal Register notice, FMCSA conducted additional analysis to improve the effectiveness of the Crash Indicator Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Category (BASIC). In addition, the Agency will develop and implement a demonstration program to determine the efficacy of a program to conduct preventability determinations on certain types of crashes that generally are less complex.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
For information contact Mr. Catterson Oh, Compliance Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone 202-366-2247 or by email:
The Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program is FMCSA's enforcement model that allows the Agency and its State partners to identify and address motor carrier safety problems before crashes occur. The Agency's SMS quantifies the on-road safety performance of motor carriers to prioritize enforcement resources. FMCSA first announced the implementation of the SMS in the
Since its implementation in 2010, the SMS has used recordable crash records involving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) that are submitted by the States through the Agency's Motor Carrier Management Information System, in addition to compliance and safety performance in other BASICs, to prioritize carriers for safety interventions. The Agency uses the definition of “accident” in 49 CFR 390.5, which means an occurrence involving a CMV operating on a highway in interstate or intrastate commerce that results in: (i) A fatality; (ii) bodily injury to a person who, as a result of the injury, immediately receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or (iii) one or more motor vehicles incurring disabling damage as a result of the accident,
The crash data reported to FMCSA by the States does not specify a motor carrier's role in the crash or whether the crash was preventable. The Crash Indicator BASIC weights crashes based on crash severity, with more weight given to fatality and injury crashes than those that resulted in a vehicle being towed from the scene with no injuries or fatalities. While the public SMS Web site provides information on the recordable crashes of motor carriers, the percentile created by the system is not and has never been publicly available. The Crash Indicator BASIC percentiles are available only to motor carriers who log in to view their own data, as well as to Agency and law enforcement users.
In addition, Section 5223 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation, Pubic Law 114-94 (FAST) Act prohibits the Agency from making available to the general public information regarding crashes in which a determination is made that the motor carrier or the commercial motor vehicle driver is not at fault.
Research on the issue of crash preventability conducted by FMCSA, as well as independent organizations, has demonstrated that crash involvement, regardless of role in the crash, is a strong indicator of future crash risk. FMCSA's recently completed SMS Effectiveness Test shows that, as a group, motor carriers with high percentiles in the Crash Indicator BASIC have crash rates that are 85 percent higher than the national average. (
Stakeholders have expressed concern that the Crash Indicator BASIC may not identify the highest risk motor carriers for intervention because it includes all crashes without regard to the preventability of the crash. In addition, some industry representatives have advised that while the Crash Indicator BASIC percentile is not publicly available, some customers are requiring motor carriers to disclose this information before committing to a contract.
In an attempt to identify a methodology and process for conducting preventability reviews, FMCSA completed a study on the feasibility of using a motor carrier's role in crashes as an indicator of future crash risk. The analysis focused only on the three broad questions below addressing the procedural issues surrounding a crash weighting program and the feasibility of implementing such a program; it did not focus on any other implications of the program. The three questions were separately designed and analyzed to inform Agency decisions.
1. Do PARs provide sufficient, consistent, and reliable information to support crash weighting determinations?
2. Would a crash weighting determination process offer an even stronger predictor of crash risk than overall crash involvement, and how would crash weighting be implemented in the SMS?
3. Depending upon the analysis results for the questions above, how might FMCSA manage the process for making crash weighting determinations, including public input to the process?
The Agency's research plan was posted on the Agency's Web site on July 23, 2012, at
FMCSA received 54 docket submissions in response to the January 23, 2015 (80 FR 3719) notice. The commenters represented motor carriers, drivers, industry associations, safety advocates, and State enforcement partners. The comments focused on: (1) The impacts of the SMS information, (2) methodology changes needed in SMS, and (3) the preventability determination process.
There was a majority opinion from the commenters that the establishment and use of a Crash Indicator BASIC percentile without consideration of crash preventability has been detrimental to motor carriers. Even though this percentile is not publicly available—it is only available to the Agency, law enforcement, and motor carriers who log into the FMCSA's Portal to view their own data—commenters expressed concern that the percentile is inaccurate, unfair, and negatively impacts their businesses. Even though the Crash Indicator BASIC percentiles are not publicly available, the American Moving and Storage Association (AMSA) and the Minnesota Trucking Association (MTA) advised that shippers are requiring motor carriers to show their percentiles before contracting with them. Industry representatives indicated that the percentiles are inaccurate because non-preventable crashes are included and, therefore, the percentiles portray motor carriers as unsafe even when their drivers or vehicles did not cause a crash.
Safety advocates, including Road Safe America, Truck Safety Coalition, and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), supported keeping all crashes in the SMS system. These groups advised that using all crashes best predicts future crash risk and that the public should have access to all of the crash data.
As discussed in this notice, as well as a separate notice published today in the
FMCSA's SMS Effectiveness Test, discussed above, supports the Agency's continued use of the Crash Indicator BASIC for its own resource prioritization during the analysis period. The Agency notes that crashes will not affect a motor carrier's safety rating unless the carrier's role in the crashes is considered first.
Tim Watson recommended that the Agency change the recordable crash definition to eliminate tow-aways. Mr. Watson contended that the Agency's focus should be on fatal and injury crashes and that, often, the damage requiring a tow is not severe. It is his opinion that focusing on the fatal and injury crashes would be more manageable and cost-effective for FMCSA.
The American Bus Association (ABA) and National School Transportation Association (NSTA) presented a different perspective. These groups contended that the extra weighting of fatal and injury crashes has greater, and inappropriate, impacts on the passenger carrier sectors of the industry. Because of the volume of passengers, there is rarely a crash involving a bus that does not result in at least one injury. As a result, extra weighting on these crashes would automatically raise the Crash Indicator BASIC percentiles for passenger carriers.
The passenger carrier industry also suggested that FMCSA should establish separate safety event groups for passenger and property carriers. The ABA, NSTA, and FirstGroup America indicated that this change would result in a more balanced comparison of crashes.
ABA and NSTA recommended that FMCSA normalize the number of crashes using VMT to adjust the percentiles for the exposure of large carriers. It was presented that such a change would distinguish between carriers in high traffic areas and those that are not. These commenters believed that this change in the method of calculation would result in more accurate percentiles for large carriers.
FMCSA notes that VMT is already factored into the calculation of the Crash Indicator BASIC percentile. Currently, to normalize the Crash Indicator calculation, the Crash Indicator BASIC measure is calculated by dividing the sum of the time/severity weight for all applicable crashes by the Average Power Units (PU) multiplied by the Utilization Factor. The Utilization Factor is based on industry segment (combination or straight) and VMT, as noted in the following tables.
Additionally, FMCSA aligned its VMT data requirements with the Unified Registration System (URS). Previously, the SMS only used VMT data from a carrier's registration form when the VMT-associated calendar year was within 24 months of the current year. This improvement enables the SMS to use a carrier's VMT data regardless of VMT-associated calendar year.
While not submitted as a comment, the Agency also considered increasing the minimum number of crashes required in a 24 month period from two to three, or five, like the other SMS BASICs, before the crashes will be included in the SMS calculation.
As analyzed in the Crash Indicator BASIC Scenario Analysis, the overall crash rate for the group of carriers over the intervention threshold using a minimum of three crashes is about the same as the crash rate for the group of carriers over the intervention threshold in the current Crash Indicator BASIC (6.33 vs. 6.34 crashes per 100 Power units). This suggests that using a minimum of three crashes would continue to identify a group of carriers with high crash rates. However, this change in data sufficiency provides the Agency with a high level of confidence. The number of crashes covered under this scenario is only slightly lower than the number of crashes for the current Crash Indicator BASIC (14,838 vs. 15,638 crashes).
However, when the minimum number of crashes is raised to five, the overall crash rate for the group of carriers over the intervention threshold is lower than the crash rate for the group of carriers over the intervention threshold in the current Crash Indicator BASIC (6.23 vs. 6.34 crashes per 100 PUs), which suggests that raising the minimum number of crashes to five would reduce the effectiveness of the Crash Indicator BASIC in identifying high crash risk carriers. The number of crashes covered under this scenario is lower than the number of crashes for the current Crash Indicator BASIC (13,337 vs. 15,638 crashes).
Based on this additional analysis, FMCSA is proposing to change the minimum number of crashes from two to three before a percentile is calculated in the Crash Indicator BASIC. This change is being added to the list of proposed enhancements announced in docket FMCSA-2015-0149, “Future Enhancements to the Safety Measurement System (SMS)” published in the
The American Trucking Associations (ATA) provided a list of certain types of non-preventable crashes and suggested that FMCSA establish a process by which documents could be submitted on these crashes and they could be removed from the motor carriers' record. These crashes included when the CMV is struck by a motorist who:
• Was found responsible by law enforcement for the crash;
• Was the sole party cited;
• Was driving under the influence;
• Crossed the centerline or median;
• Was driving the wrong way;
• Struck the truck in the rear; or
• Struck the truck while legally stopped.
Additionally, ATA recommended that FMCSA consider a crash non-preventable when an individual commits suicide or vehicles are incapacitated by animals.
There were many comments that indicated that PARs, as currently completed and submitted to FMCSA, are not adequate for completing a preventability determination. KSS Trucking noted, “I must comment on the PAR accuracy in this situation. After reading the report and interviews I have noted some discrepancies. From something as simple as my license plate number . . . to something as extensive as my interview, there are differences in what was reported and what was recorded.” Also, Advocates agreed with the Agency that “PARS cannot be relied on to reach dependable determinations as to crash causation.” Several commenters, including the ATA, National Waste and Recycling Association, and MTA, recommended that FMCSA require uniform PARs. The Oregon Department of Transportation recommended using PARs, Department of Motor Vehicle crash reports, and State motor carrier crash reports to determine preventability. Also, numerous commenters suggested using the Agency's existing Request for Data Review (RDR) process through the DataQs system for these requests.
NM Transfer Company, Inc. and Vigillo LLC recommended that FMCSA require States to make preventability determinations with the funding they are provided through the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. The National Motor Freight Traffic Association, Inc. added that it is their opinion that police are taught to find fault. AMSA and ATA recommended that FMCSA tell the States not to upload the crash if the CMV or driver was not at fault. The Institute for Makers of Explosives suggested that all of the crashes be reviewed using the process currently in place for applicants for Hazardous Materials Safety Permits.
There were differing opinions on if and how the public could be involved in the preventability determination process. Advocates and the Owner-Operator Independent Driver Association (OOIDA) indicated that adjudications hearings are needed to protect the interests of all persons involved. Advocates also noted that the Agency did not propose any deterrents for filing fraudulently and excessively. OOIDA noted that, “When the government seeks to determine whether a[n] individual or company is at fault for causing bodily injuries or property damage, it must provide the accused a right to a hearing before a neutral fact-finder; the ability to offer evidence and witnesses; and the opportunity to challenge evidence and witnesses against them. Under our country's systems of legal fairness and due process, FMCSA may not unilaterally determine fault, notify the public of that determination, and punish the motor carrier by damaging its reputation. This is a problem with both FMCSA's current and proposed system of dealing with crashes. If there was a legal proceeding related to an accident where there was a finding of fault or admission, FMCSA may rely upon the determination of fault in that proceeding. That would be the only reliable source of information about crash fault to FMCSA.”
Regarding the estimated costs for a preventability determination process, the National Tank Truck Carriers indicated “this would be money well spent if it served the over-riding purpose of identifying unsafe driving behavior.” However, several commenters, including Advocates, indicated that this would be millions of dollars “that would not lead to any improvement in data quality.”
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice; request for public comment.
On January 23, 2015, FMCSA announced the results of the Agency's study on the feasibility of using a motor carrier's role in crashes in the assessment of the company's safety. This study assessed: Whether police accident reports (PARs) provide sufficient, consistent, and reliable information to support crash-weighting determinations; whether a crash-weighting determination process would offer an even stronger predictor of crash risk than overall crash involvement and how crash weighting would be implemented in the Agency's Safety Measurement System (SMS); and how FMCSA might manage a process for making crash-weighting determinations, including the acceptance of public input.
Based on the feedback received in response to the January 23, 2015,
Comments must be received on or before September 12, 2016.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2014-0177 using any of the following methods:
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
For information contact Mr. Catterson Oh, Compliance Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone 202-366-6160 or by email:
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2014-0177), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this notice based on your comments.
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
The Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program is FMCSA's enforcement model that allows the Agency and its State partners to identify and address motor carrier safety problems before crashes occur. The Agency's SMS quantifies the on-road safety performance of motor carriers to prioritize enforcement resources. FMCSA first announced the implementation of the SMS in the
Since its implementation in 2010, the SMS has used recordable-crash records involving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) that are submitted by the States through the Agency's Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS), in addition to safety performance in other BASICs, to assess motor carriers' crash histories and prioritize carriers for safety interventions. The Agency uses the definition of “accident” in 49 CFR 390.5.
The crash data reported to FMCSA by the States does not specify a motor carrier's role in the crash or whether the crash was preventable. The Crash Indicator BASIC weights crashes based on crash severity, with more weight given to fatality and injury crashes than those that resulted in a vehicle towed from the scene with no injuries or fatalities. While the public SMS Web site provides information on the recordable crashes of motor carriers, the Crash Indicator BASIC percentiles created by the system have never been publicly available. The Crash Indicator BASIC percentiles are available only to motor carriers who log in to view their own data, as well as to Agency and law enforcement users.
Research on this issue conducted by FMCSA, as well as independent organizations, has demonstrated that crash involvement, regardless of role in the crash, is a strong indicator of future crash risk. FMCSA's recently completed SMS Effectiveness Test shows that, as a group, motor carriers with high percentiles in the Crash Indicator BASIC have crash rates that are 85 percent higher than the national average. (
Because the Crash Indicator BASIC includes all crashes—without regard to the preventability of the crash, stakeholders have expressed concern that it may not identify the highest-risk motor carriers for interventions. In addition, some industry representatives have advised that, while the Crash Indicator BASIC percentile is not publicly available, some customers are requiring motor carriers to disclose this information before committing to a contract.
To identify a methodology and process for conducting preventability reviews, FMCSA completed a study on the feasibility of using a motor carrier's role in crashes as an indicator of future crash risk. The analysis focused only on three broad questions addressing the procedural issues surrounding a crash-weighting program and the feasibility of implementing such a program; it did not
The three questions were individually designed and analyzed to inform Agency decisions.
1. Do Police Accident Reports (PARs) provide sufficient, consistent, and reliable information to support crash-weighting determinations?
2. Would a crash-weighting determination process offer an even stronger predictor of crash risk than overall crash involvement, and how would crash weighting be implemented in the SMS?
3. Depending upon the analysis results for the questions above, how might FMCSA manage the process for making crash-weighting determinations, including public input to the process?
The Agency's research plan was posted on the Agency's Web site on July 23, 2012, at
The comments to the January 23, 2015,
Elsewhere in today's
In response to FMCSA's January 23, 2015,
A crash would be considered not preventable if the CMV was struck by a motorist who was convicted of one of the four following offenses or a related offense:
1. Driving under the influence;
2. Driving the wrong direction;
3. Striking the CMV in the rear; or
4. Striking the CMV while it was legally stopped.
FMCSA is specifically interested in information related specifically to these four crash scenarios that would be useful for this demonstration program.
The Agency proposes that evidence of a conviction, as defined in 49 CFR 383.5 and 390.5, for one of the above offenses must be submitted with the RDR to document that the crash was not preventable by the motor carrier or driver. In addition to documentation of the conviction, these RDRs should include all available law enforcement reports, insurance reports from all parties involved in the crash, and any other relevant information. However, FMCSA specifically seeks comments on what other documentation would be sufficient to make this determination.
FMCSA notes that this list is not identical to ATA's proposed list. Because some of the crash scenarios submitted by ATA were too broadly defined and/or may not result in convictions, the Agency is not using the suggested standard of “was found responsible by law enforcement for the crash.” Previous research by the Agency showed that PARs do not generally provide a clear determination as to the preventability of a crash. Relying on a conviction related to one of the crash scenarios described ensures the Agency will have a clear record on which to base its determination.
RDRs could also be submitted through DataQs when the crash did not involve other vehicles, such as crashes in which an individual committed suicide by stepping or driving in front of the vehicle or the vehicle was incapacitated by an animal in the roadway or the crash was the result of an infrastructure failure. The RDR must present sufficient evidence that the driver of the CMV took reasonable action to avoid the crash and did not contribute to the crash. If, for example, a CMV hit an animal but the CMV driver was on his/her cellphone or speeding at the time of the crash, this crash would be determined to have been preventable. In these and all crashes, the Agency reserves the right to request additional information to substantiate the cause of the crash. Failure to submit a complete RDR with the required documentation would be cause for the RDR to be rejected.
Again, the Agency seeks comments on what other documentation would be sufficient to make this determination.
In addition, Section 5223 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation, Pub. L. 114-94 (FAST) Act prohibits the Agency from making available to the general public information regarding crashes in which a determination is made that the motor carrier or the commercial motor vehicle driver is not at fault. Therefore, crashes determined to be not preventable will not be listed on the carrier's list of crashes on the public SMS Web site.
For this demonstration program, FMCSA is proposing to use DataQs to direct these types of requests to a group of reviewers under the Agency's direct supervision. FMCSA has not yet determined whether this would be a dedicated group of FMCSA staff or if these reviews would be conducted by a third party under contract to FMCSA. These RDRs would not be directed to the States.
Upon receipt of a complete RDR, FMCSA staff or a contractor would review the submission using the preventability definition in 49 CFR part 385. The Agency proposes that the RDR would result in one of the following three decisions and actions:
1.
2.
3.
In keeping with the Agency's current preventability guidance, if a post-crash inspection determines that the motor carrier, vehicle, or driver was in violation of an out-of-service regulation at the time of the crash, the crash will be determined to have been “Preventable.”
The public, including motor carriers and drivers, would be allowed to seek review of the RDR decision using the DataQs system and processes currently in place.
In order to ensure the quality and consistency of the reviews, FMCSA will build a quality control standard into either its contract or its internal procedures. For example, it is anticipated that a process will be established to require a certain percent of reviews to be checked by a different reviewer to confirm consistent decisions are made. When a different conclusion is reached by the second reviewer, a supervisor will be responsible for reviewing the case and rendering a decision.
In accordance with the Agency's existing DataQs program, any intentionally false or misleading statement, representation, or document that is provided in support of an RDR may result in prosecution for a violation of Federal law punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both (18 U.S.C. 1001).
Throughout this test period, FMCSA will maintain data so that at the conclusion of the test, the Agency can conduct analysis. It is expected that the Agency's analysis would include, but not be limited to, cost of operating the test, future crashes of carriers that submitted RDRs, future crash rates of motor carriers with preventable crashes, and impacts to SMS crash rates. The analysis will be used to examine ATA's assertion that crashes of these types are not the responsibility of the motor carrier, and inform future policy decisions on this issue.
FMCSA proposes that the minimum time period for this crash preventability test would be 24 months.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 55 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were effective on January 29, 2016. The exemptions expire on January 29, 2018.
Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On December 29, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from 55 individuals and requested comments from the public (80 FR 81415). The public comment period closed on January 28, 2016.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 55 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
These 55 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 37 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe
The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the December 29, 2015,
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
Based upon its evaluation of the 55 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above 49 CFR 391.64(b)).
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 18 individuals for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before August 11, 2016. All comments will be investigated by FMCSA. The exemptions will be issued the day after the comment period closes.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0030 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each 2-year period. The 18 individuals listed in this notice have each requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Mr. Beckum, 29, has had optic atrophy in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is counting fingers, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “I feel Mr. Beckum is safe to operate a commercial motor vehicle given the vision we tested today.” Mr. Beckum reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 3 years, accumulating 79,500 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Georgia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Benton, 53, has had a prosthetic left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “I certify that Mr. Steve Benton has sufficient vision to perform the driving task required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Benton reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 75,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Texas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Boulware, 33, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “If the findings submitted are sufficient for DOT requirements for CDL [
Mr. Campbell, 57, has had exotropia and amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated that Mr. Campbell does have sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a CMV. Mr. Campbell reported that he has driven straight trucks for 36 years, accumulating 2.88 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 36 years, accumulating 3.24 million miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from New York. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Cothren, 49, has had a prosthetic right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion, this patient has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Cothren reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 125,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 20 years, accumulating 2 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Harnos, 41, has a corneal scar in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 2000. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, counting fingers. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “His right eye meets all criteria for a CDL.” Mr. Harnos reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 195,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from New Jersey. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Hormann, 41, has a retinal scar in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 1992. The visual acuity in his right
Mr. Jones, 63, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/70, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “I do not believe that Mr. Jones [
Mr. Jones, 40, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic incident in 2006. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “Based on the criteria necessary to operate a commercial motor vehicle by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, it is my medical opinion that Mr. Jones meets the requirements in the right eye.” Mr. Jones reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 150,000 miles. He holds a chauffer's license from Louisiana. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Martin, 53, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “My medical opinion is that Mr. Duane Martin has sufficient vision in his left eye to perform the driving tasks required to operate his commercial vehicle.” Mr. Martin reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 600,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 4 years, accumulating 100,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Orr, 49, has a cataract in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, counting fingers. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “At this time, I do feel that Roger Orr has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Orr reported that he has driven straight trucks for 6 years, accumulating 138,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Peery, 50, has had a prosthetic left eye since 2001. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “Pt [sic] has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Peery reported that he has driven straight trucks for 31 years, accumulating 620,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 31 years, accumulating 775,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Maryland. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Ray, 72, has a retinal scar in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 1953. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion Mr. Ray has the visual capability to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Ray reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 40 years, accumulating 1.81 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Idaho. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Shryock, 48, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated, “I certify in my medical opinion that Mr. Shryock has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Shryock reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 900,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 24 years, accumulating 1.68 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Sodders, 64, has had complete loss of vision in his right eye since 2009 due to melanoma. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my opinion, the patient has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Sodders reported that he has driven straight trucks for 37 years, accumulating 426,240 miles. He holds an operator's license from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Stearns, 34, has had a central scotoma in his left eye since 2008. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye, counting fingers. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Stearns has sufficient vision and visual fields to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Stearns, reported that he has driven straight trucks for 18 years, accumulating 540,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Arkansas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Tyler, 40, has had panuveitis in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist stated, “I certify in my medical opinion that Mr. Keith Tyler has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Tyler reported that he has driven buses for 19 years, accumulating 190,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Yingst, 53, has had blindness in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “After performing a visual examination of Mr. Yingst it is in my professional opinion he is visually able to safely operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Yingst reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 30 years, accumulating 360,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition; grant of application for exemption.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant an exemption to Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler) for one of its commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. Daimler requested a five-year exemption from the Federal requirement to hold a U.S. commercial driver's license (CDL) for Ms. Melanie Baumann, executive assistant to the head of the Daimler Trucks and Bus Division. Ms. Baumann holds a valid German commercial license and wants to test drive Daimler vehicles on U.S. roads to better understand product requirements in “real world” environments, and verify results. Daimler believes the requirements for a German commercial license ensure that operation under the exemption will likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be obtained in the absence of the exemption.
This exemption is effective June 30, 2016, and expires June 29, 2021.
For information concerning this notice, contact Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 202-366-4325. Email:
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the
Section 5206(a)(3) of the “Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act,” (FAST Act) [Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1537, Dec. 4, 2015], amended 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) by adding a new paragraph (2) which permits exemptions for no longer than five years from their dates of inception, instead of the previous two years. This statutory provision will be codified in 49 CFR part 381 in a forthcoming rulemaking.
Daimler applied for a 30-day waiver and a 5-year exemption from 49 CFR 383.23, which prescribes licensing requirements for drivers operating CMVs in interstate or intrastate commerce, for one of its drivers, Ms. Melanie Baumann. Ms. Baumann holds a valid German commercial license but is unable to obtain a CDL in any of the U.S. States due to residency requirements. A copy of the application is in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0032.
On April 3, 2016, FMCSA granted Ms. Baumann a waiver effective from June 1 through June 30, 2016, to allow her to drive Daimler vehicles as described in the application for the exemption. The 5-year exemption will replace the waiver before it expires. Ms. Baumann needs to drive Daimler vehicles on public roads to better understand “real world” environments in the U.S. market. According to Daimler, Ms. Baumann will typically drive for no more than 6 hours per day for 2 consecutive days, and that 10 percent of the test driving will be on two-lane State highways, while 90 percent will be on Interstate highways. The driving will consist of no more than 200 miles per day, for a total of 400 miles during a two-day period on a quarterly basis. She will in all cases be accompanied by a holder of a U.S. CDL who is familiar with the routes to be traveled.
Ms. Baumann holds a valid German commercial license, and as explained by Daimler in its exemption request, the requirements for that license ensure that the same level of safety is met or exceeded as if this driver had a U.S. CDL. Furthermore, according to Daimler, Ms. Baumann is familiar with the operation of CMVs worldwide.
FMCSA has previously determined that the process for obtaining a German commercial license is comparable to, or as effective as, the requirements of part 383, and adequately assesses the driver's ability to operate CMVs in the U.S. Since 2012, FMCSA has granted Daimler drivers similar exemptions [May 25, 2012 (77 FR 31422); July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42626); March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16511); October 5, 2015 (80 FR 60220); December 7, 2015 (80 FR 76059); December 21, 2015 (80 FR 79410)].
On April 5, 2016, FMCSA published notice of this application and requested public comments (81 FR 19702). There were no comments in opposition or in support of the proposed exemption.
Based upon the merits of this application, including Ms. Baumann's extensive driving experience and safety record, FMCSA concluded that the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, in accordance with § 381.305(a).
FMCSA grants Daimler and Melanie Baumann an exemption from the CDL requirement in 49 CFR 383.23 to allow Ms. Baumann to drive CMVs in this country without a U.S. State-issued CDL, subject to the following terms and conditions: (1) The driver and carrier must comply with all other applicable provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) (49 CFR parts 350-399); (2) the driver must be in possession of the exemption document and a valid German commercial license; (3) the driver must be employed by and operate the CMV within the scope of her duties for Daimler; (4) at all times while operating a CMV under this exemption, the driver must be accompanied by a holder of a U.S. CDL who is familiar with the routes traveled; (5) Daimler must notify FMCSA in writing within 5 business days of any accident, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, involving this driver; and (6) Daimler must notify FMCSA in writing if this driver is convicted of a disqualifying offense under § 383.51 or § 391.15 of the FMCSRs.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the exemption will be valid for 5 years unless revoked earlier by the FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) Ms. Baumann fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption results in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate or intrastate commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption.
In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated May, 4, 2016, the Maryland Transit Administration (MARC) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR 238.309(a)(2), 229.27(a)(2), and 229.29(e). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2008-0065.
MARC's purpose for the submission of this petition is to gain acceptance by FRA of the application of the following alternate standards for the CCB-KE-3.9 air brake system of the MARC HHP-8 locomotives. This alternate standard to 49 CFR 229.29(e) and 238.309(a)(2) is to allow for the level two and level three maintenance intervals to be 2,944 days (8 years). This request for the application of an alternate standard is based on the results of an age exploration study for the HHP8 air brake system as outlined in Docket Numbers FRA-2008-0065 and FRA-2001-10596.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by August 26, 2016 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice Dismissing Application and Closing the Docket.
The application for a determination of preemption is dismissed, and this docket is closed, because the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania's permit and permit fee requirements are not being applied or enforced.
Vincent Lopez, Office of Chief Counsel (PHC-10), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone No. 202-366-4400; facsimile No. 202-366-7041.
The American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) applied for an administrative determination concerning whether Federal hazardous material transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101
In light of this information, ATA's application is hereby dismissed, and the docket is closed. In the future, if the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania's permit and permit fee requirements are ever applied and enforced, ATA may again submit an application for a preemption determination.
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, Treasury.
Notice and Request for Public Comment.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). Currently, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund), U.S. Department of the Treasury, is soliciting comments concerning the Community Development Financial Institutions Program (CDFI Program) and the Native American CDFI Assistance Program (NACA Program) Financial Assistance and Technical Assistance Applications for the FY 2017-FY 2019 funding rounds (hereafter, the Application or Applications). The CDFI Fund is required by law to make the Applications publically available for comment prior to submission for a new PRA number.
Written comments must be received on or before September 12, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Submit your comments via email to Amber Bell, CDFI Program and NACA Program Manager, CDFI Fund, at
Amber Bell, CDFI Program and NACA Program Manager, CDFI Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220 or email to
The Applications may be obtained from the CDFI Program page and NACA Program page of the CDFI Fund's Web site
Through the CDFI Program and NACA Program's Financial Assistance awards and Technical Assistance grants, the CDFI Fund invests in and builds the capacity of for-profit and nonprofit community based lending organizations known as Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs).
CDFI Program and NACA Program award Recipients will be competitively selected after the CDFI Fund's careful review of their Applications. The proposed Financial Assistance Application requires the submission of quantitative and qualitative information about the Applicant's Business Strategy, Products and Services, Market and Competitive Analysis, Management and Staffing, Financial Position, and Growth and Financial Projections. The proposed Technical Assistance Application requires the submission of quantitative and qualitative information about CDFI Certification Qualifications, an Organizational Overview, and Use of Funds. Please refer to the FY 2016 CDFI Program and NACA Program NOFAs for additional guidance on the review and application process for past funding rounds.
This request for public comment seeks to gather information on the CDFI Program and NACA Program Financial Assistance and Technical Assistance Applications.
Comments concerning the Applications are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services required to provide information.
In addition, the CDFI Fund requests comments in response to the following questions:
(1) Is the information that is proposed to be collected by the Application necessary and appropriate for the CDFI Fund to consider for the purpose of making award decisions?
(2) Are certain questions or tables redundant or unnecessary?
(3) Should any questions or tables be added to ensure collection of relevant information?
(4) In general, does the data and information requested in the Application allow an Applicant to demonstrate its ability to meet the eligible uses (commercial facilities, small businesses, microenterprises, community facilities, consumer financial products and services, affordable housing, and intermediary lending to nonprofits and CDFIs) of CDFI Fund Program awards?
(5) Is the data and information requested in the Application to assess proposed Financial Assistance activities adequate to assess these different activities?
(6) What, if any, additional data and information should be collected to assess Financial Assistance activities?
(7) Are any of the questions particularly burdensome or difficult to answer? Please be specific to type of CDFI (
(8) Are the character limitations for narrative responses appropriate? Should certain questions allow additional or fewer characters?
(9) Are there questions that lack clarity as to intent or purpose? If so, which questions, and what needs to be clarified in order to provide a comprehensive response?
(10) Are there questions that would require additional guidance in order to respond adequately? If so, which questions, and what type of instructions would be helpful in order to be able to provide a response?
(11) Is the financial data that is intended to be collected adequate to assess an Applicant's financial and portfolio performance?
(12) Is there other information not requested in the Application that could demonstrate an Applicant's financial and portfolio performance?
(13) Tables in Questions 6 a-d ask for certain data and information that will be used to assess an Applicant's projected Financial Assistance activities. Is the data collected in these tables adequate to assess an Applicant's projected Financial Assistance activities?
(14) Is there other information not requested in the Application that would demonstrate an Applicant's projected Financial Assistance activities?
(15) Are there requests for data in the Application that Applicants do not have readily available or that are burdensome to obtain and/or calculate?
(16) Do the questions in the Technical Assistance Application allow the Applicant to clearly answer the evaluation criteria if the CDFI Program and NACA Program were to evaluate Technical Assistance Awards by the applicant's ability to achieve the following for each applicant category type:
(a) Emerging and Certifiable CDFI: Achieve certification for the Applicant;
(b) Sponsoring Entity: Create and certify a new CDFI; and
(c) Certified CDFI: Build the capacity of the Applicant to expand operations, offer new products or services, or increase the volume of current business?
Pub. L. 110-289, 12 CFR 1807.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC).
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the renewal of an information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning renewal of its information collection titled, “Reverse Mortgage Products: Guidance for Managing Compliance and Reputation Risks” (Guidance).
Comments must be received by September 12, 2016.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0246, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mailstop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include 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
The OCC is proposing to extend OMB approval of the following information collection:
The information collection requirements included implementation of policies and procedures, training, and program maintenance. The requirements are outlined below:
• Institutions offering reverse mortgages should have written policies and procedures that prohibit the practice of directing a consumer to a particular counseling agency or contacting a counselor on the consumer's behalf.
• Policies should be clear so that originators do not have an inappropriate
• Legal and compliance reviews should include oversight of compensation programs so that lending personnel are not improperly encouraged to direct consumers to particular products.
• Training should be designed so that relevant lending personnel are able to convey information to consumers about product terms and risks in a timely, accurate, and balanced manner.
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal banking agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, August 2, 2016.
Stacia Jones at 1-888-912-1227 or 713-209-4818.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee will be held Tuesday, August 2, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Stacia Jones. For more information please contact: Stacia Jones at 1-888-912-1227 or 713-209-4818, TAP Office, 1919 Smith, Houston, TX 77002, or contact us at the Web site:
The agenda will include a discussion on various special topics with IRS processes.
Notice of open meetings to be held in Washington, DC to review and edit drafts of the 2016 Annual Report to Congress on the following dates: July 13-14, August 10-11, September 14-15, and October 5-6, 2016.
Notice is hereby given of meetings of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
The Commission is mandated by Congress to investigate, assess, evaluate and report to Congress annually on the U.S.-China economic and security relationship. The mandate specifically charges the Commission to prepare a report to Congress “regarding the national security implications and impact of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China [that] shall include a full analysis, along with conclusions and recommendations for legislative and administrative actions . . .”
The Commission is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) with the enactment of the Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 that was signed into law on November 22, 2005 (Public Law 109-108). In accordance with FACA, the Commission's meeting to make decisions concerning the substance and recommendations of its 2016 Annual Report to Congress are open to the public.
• U.S.-China Economic and Trade Relations, including: Year in Review, Economics and Trade; State-Owned Enterprises, Overcapacity, and China's Market Economy Status; and 13th Five-Year Plan.
• U.S.-China Security Relations, including: Year in Review, Security and Foreign Affairs; China's Expeditionary and Force Projection Capabilities; and China's Intelligence Services and Espionage Threats to the United States.
• China and the world, including: China and South Asia, China and Taiwan, China and Hong Kong, and China and North Korea.
• China and the U.S. Rebalance to Asia.
All report review-editing sessions will be held in The Hall of the States (North Bldg., 2nd Floor), located at 444 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20001.
Public seating is limited and will be available on a “first-come, first-served” basis.
The open meetings will also be adjourned around noon for a lunch break. At the beginning of the lunch break, the Chairman will announce what time the Annual Report review and editing session will reconvene.
Rickisha Berrien-Lopez, Human Resources and Administrative Specialist, U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 602, Washington, DC 20001; Phone: (202) 624-1454; Email:
Congress created the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in 2000 in the National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 106-398), as amended by Division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Pub. L. 108-7), as amended by Public Law 109-108 (November 22, 2005), as amended by Public Law 113-291 (December 19, 2014).
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |