81_FR_170
Page Range | 60235-60579 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
81 FR 60579 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks | |
81 FR 60343 - Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review | |
81 FR 60352 - Farm Credit Administration Board; Sunshine Act; Regular Meeting | |
81 FR 60240 - Special Conditions: Bombardier Aerospace Inc. Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 Airplanes; Sidestick Controllers | |
81 FR 60236 - Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc., Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 Airplanes; Interactions of Systems and Structures | |
81 FR 60401 - FAA Approval of Noise Compatibility Program; Boise Air Terminal (Gowen Field) Boise, Idaho | |
81 FR 60376 - Second Call for Nominations for the Utah Resource Advisory Council, State Agency Category | |
81 FR 60376 - Notice of Extension of Concession Contract | |
81 FR 60371 - Privacy Act of 1974; Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (DHS/CBP)-022 Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) System of Records | |
81 FR 60297 - Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection (DHS/CBP)-022 Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) System of Records | |
81 FR 60377 - Change of Jurisdiction-National Park Service Units Within the Commonwealth of Kentucky | |
81 FR 60341 - Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Amorphous Silica Fabric From the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination | |
81 FR 60407 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 60410 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Forms 8282 and 8283 | |
81 FR 60288 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2015-2016 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Inseason Adjustments | |
81 FR 60285 - Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; 2016 Recreational Accountability Measure and Closure for the South Atlantic Other Porgies Complex | |
81 FR 60348 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 60400 - Executive Order 13224 Designation of Abdiqadir Mumin, aka Sheikh Abdikadir Mumin, aka Sheiky Abdulqadir Mumin, aka Sheikh Abdulqadir Mumin, aka Abdul Qadir Mumin, aka Sheikh Abdiqadir Mumin Yusuf, aka Sheikh Abdulkadir Mumin, aka Abdul Nadir Mumin, aka Abdul Qadr Mu'min as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
81 FR 60401 - Delegation of the Authority To Submit Report Pursuant to Section 1247 of Public Law 114-92 | |
81 FR 60338 - Environmental Impact Statement; Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program | |
81 FR 60354 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
81 FR 60241 - Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc. Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 Airplanes; Hydrophobic Coatings in Lieu of Windshield Wipers | |
81 FR 60235 - Special Rights for Transferred Employees Under the Dodd-Frank Act Regarding Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance | |
81 FR 60349 - Notification of an Open Meeting of the National Defense University Board of Visitors (BOV) | |
81 FR 60347 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting | |
81 FR 60407 - Buy America Waiver Notification | |
81 FR 60345 - Export Trade Certificate of Review | |
81 FR 60351 - Notice of Public Meeting To Summarize Public Input Received on the Design of a Consent-Based Siting Process for Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste Storage and Disposal Facilities | |
81 FR 60329 - World Trade Center Health Program; Petition 013-Autoimmune Disease; Finding of Insufficient Evidence | |
81 FR 60347 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Initiation of 5-Year Review for Mediterranean Monk Seal | |
81 FR 60389 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed First Partial Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) Consent Decree Under Cercla | |
81 FR 60286 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Adjustments to 2016 Northern Albacore Tuna and Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quotas | |
81 FR 60415 - Proposed Information Collection (NCA Pre-Need Determination of Eligibility for Burial) Activity: Comment Request | |
81 FR 60339 - Tehama County Resource Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 60410 - Departmental Offices; Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 60403 - Notice of Funding Opportunity for Accelerated Innovation Deployment Demonstration | |
81 FR 60299 - Manufacturer Communications Regarding Unapproved Uses of Approved or Cleared Medical Products; Public Hearing; Request for Comments | |
81 FR 60339 - Glenn and Colusa County Resource Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 60390 - Report on Countries That Are Candidates for Millennium Challenge Account Eligibility in Fiscal Year 2017 and Countries That Would Be Candidates but for Legal Prohibitions | |
81 FR 60393 - Exelon Generation Company, LLC; LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2; License Renewal | |
81 FR 60353 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request (3064-0026) | |
81 FR 60353 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10500-Slavie Federal Savings Bank Bel Air, Maryland | |
81 FR 60349 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License; Microsphere Material Solutions, LLC. | |
81 FR 60347 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 60360 - Office of Public Health Support; Division of Planning, Evaluation & Research; National Native Health Research Training Initiative | |
81 FR 60368 - Request for Public Comment: 30-Day Proposed Information Collection: Application for Participation in the IHS Scholarship Program | |
81 FR 60356 - Tribal Consultation Meetings | |
81 FR 60357 - The Sentinel Post-Licensure Rapid Immunization Safety Monitoring Program; Public Workshop | |
81 FR 60358 - Microbiology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments | |
81 FR 60350 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Study of the Turnaround School Leaders Program (TSLP) | |
81 FR 60393 - Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 60350 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Study of School Climate Transformation Grants | |
81 FR 60356 - Advisory Committee; Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee, Renewal | |
81 FR 60359 - Advisory Committee; Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee, Renewal | |
81 FR 60355 - Request for Nominations of Candidates To Serve on the Advisory Committee to the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (ACD, CDC)-Health Disparities Subcommittee (HDS) | |
81 FR 60356 - Announcement of the Award of Single-Source Grants Under the Wilson-Fish Alternative Program (W-F); Correction; CFDA Number: 93.583 | |
81 FR 60413 - Proposed Information Collection (Application for Reinstatement-Insurance Lapsed More Than 6 Months (29-352) and Application for Reinstatement-Non Medical Comparative Health Statement (29-353)) Activity: Comment Request | |
81 FR 60414 - Proposed Information Collection (Application for Supplemental Service Disabled Veterans Insurance, VA Forms 29-0188 and 29-0189) Activity: Comment Request | |
81 FR 60414 - Agency Information Collection (Notice of Disagreement (NOD) (Pension, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC), Burial and Accrued), VA Form 21P-0970) Activity Under OMB Review | |
81 FR 60416 - Agency Information Collection (Principles of Excellence Complaint System Intake) Activity Under OMB Review | |
81 FR 60415 - Agency Information Collection (Medical Expense Report, VA Form 21P-8416) Activity Under OMB Review | |
81 FR 60254 - Updated Statements of Legal Authority for the Export Administration Regulations | |
81 FR 60295 - Fisheries of the Economic Exclusive Zone Off Alaska; Deep-Water Species Fishery by Vessels Using Trawl Gear in the Gulf of Alaska | |
81 FR 60396 - Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 | |
81 FR 60398 - Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Amendment to the Plan Establishing Procedures Under Rule 605 of Regulation NMS To Add the Investors Exchange LLC as a Participant | |
81 FR 60397 - Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Amendment to the Plan To Address Extraordinary Market Volatility To Add the Investors Exchange LLC as a Participant | |
81 FR 60399 - Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Amendment to the Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program To Add the Investors Exchange LLC as a Participant | |
81 FR 60394 - Consolidated Tape Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Amendment No. 26 to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and Amendment No. 19 to the Restated CQ Plan To Add the Investors Exchange LLC as a Participant | |
81 FR 60395 - Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Amendment No. 37 to the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis To Add the Investors Exchange LLC as a Participant | |
81 FR 60345 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
81 FR 60392 - Notice of Intent To Grant a Partially Exclusive License | |
81 FR 60392 - Notice of Intent To Grant Partially Exclusive License | |
81 FR 60393 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request: Blanket Justification for NEA Funding Application Guidelines and Reporting Requirements | |
81 FR 60389 - 183rd Meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans; Notice of Teleconference Meeting | |
81 FR 60402 - First Meeting of the Drone Advisory Committee (DAC) | |
81 FR 60274 - Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Open Burning and Portable Fuel Containers | |
81 FR 60329 - Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Open Burning and Portable Fuel Containers | |
81 FR 60355 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
81 FR 60354 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
81 FR 60278 - Notice of Policy on the Implementation of the Phased Increase in Domestic Content Under the Buy America Waiver for Rolling Stock and Notice of Public Interest Waiver of Buy America Domestic Content Requirements for Rolling Stock Procurement in Limited Circumstances | |
81 FR 60351 - Public Comment Draft for the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Assessment of Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE) | |
81 FR 60381 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN | |
81 FR 60380 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN | |
81 FR 60377 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN | |
81 FR 60354 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
81 FR 60340 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 279-Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Gulf Island Shipyards, LLC (Shipbuilding); Houma, Louisiana | |
81 FR 60246 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
81 FR 60304 - Requirements for Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Federally Owned Residential Property and Housing Receiving Federal Assistance; Response to Elevated Blood Lead Levels | |
81 FR 60257 - Premerger Notification; Reporting and Waiting Period Requirements | |
81 FR 60298 - Petition To Amend Statement of Interpretation and Enforcement Policy Regarding Labeling of Household Products Containing Methylene Chloride; Request for Comments | |
81 FR 60332 - Update Means of Providing Recall Notification | |
81 FR 60411 - Annual Pay Ranges for Physicians and Dentists of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) | |
81 FR 60370 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Draft 2017-2021 Strategic Plan | |
81 FR 60243 - Airworthiness Directives; PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Airplanes | |
81 FR 60418 - Form ADV and Investment Advisers Act Rules | |
81 FR 60252 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes | |
81 FR 60248 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
81 FR 60400 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Medical Clearance Update | |
81 FR 60383 - Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From Japan and Romania; Institution of Five-Year Reviews | |
81 FR 60386 - Sulfanilic Acid From China and India; Institution of Five-Year Reviews | |
81 FR 60272 - Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica; Correction |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Navy Department
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
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 electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Final rulemaking.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a Final Rulemaking to implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Act). The Act includes authorization for certain transferred employees to have a special enrollment opportunity and special rights regarding Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) to ensure their continuity of benefits coverage.
Effective September 1, 2016.
Rachel Royster, Senior Policy Analyst, Planning and Policy Analysis, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415.
On January 6, 2014, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) published a proposed regulation at 79 FR 613. The Administrative Procedures Act requires Federal agencies to publish a final regulation after a notice and comment period. Therefore, OPM is now finalizing this rule. The rule gave special FEGLI rights to the following employees who were carrying employer sponsored life insurance other than FEGLI: Employees from Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) transferred to Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Act (Pub. L. 111-203). The new regulatory provisions include new subparts in part 870 of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The relevant portions of this section states that if, after the 1-year period beginning on the transfer date, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or the Corporation determines that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or the Corporation will not continue to participate in any dental, vision or life insurance program of an agency from which an employee was transferred, a transferred employee who is a member of the program may, before the decision takes effect and without regard to any regularly scheduled open season, elect to enroll in the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Program established under chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any requirement of insurability.
For any transferred employee, enrollment in a life insurance plan administered by the agency from which the employee transferred, immediately before enrollment in a life insurance plan under chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code, shall be considered as enrollment in a life insurance plan under that chapter for the purpose of 8706(b)(1)(A) of title 5, United States Code.
These provisions allow a transferring employee that participated in an OTS life insurance program that is no longer available at OCC or FDIC to have a special enrollment period for FEGLI. OTS maintained the Office of Thrift Supervision Group Life Insurance Program in which OCC and FDIC did not continue to participate. Therefore, at approximately one year after the transfer date, July 21, 2011, OPM held a special enrollment period for transferred employees participating in Office of Thrift Supervision Group Life Insurance Program to enroll in FEGLI. The special enrollment period began on June 1, 2012 and ended July 29, 2012.
Any employee that enrolled in FEGLI during this special enrollment period will have their time in a life insurance plan administered by OTS credited towards their 5 years of continuous enrollment to continue FEGLI coverage into retirement.
There were other provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act relating to FEGLI coverage discussed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. However, these do not require further changes in FEGLI rulemaking. We received no comments on the proposed rule.
This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Orders 13563 and 12866.
We have examined this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” and have determined that this rule will not have any negative impact on the rights, roles and responsibilities of State, local, or tribal governments.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees, Life insurance.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management amends 5 CFR part 870 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 8716; Subpart J also issued under section 599C of Pub. L. 101-513, 104 Stat. 2064, as amended; Sec. 870.302(a)(3)(ii) also issued under section 153 of Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321; Sec. 870.302(a)(3) also issued under sections 11202(f), 11232(e), and 11246(b) and (c) of Pub. L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251, and section 7(e) of Pub. L. 105-274, 112 Stat. 2419; Sec. 870.302(a)(3) also issued under section 145 of Pub. L. 106-522, 114 Stat. 2472; Secs. 870.302(b)(8), 870.601(a), and 870.602(b) also issued under Pub. L. 110-279, 122 Stat. 2604; Subpart E also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8702(c); Sec. 870.601(d)(3) also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8706(d); Sec. 870.703(e)(1) also issued under section 502 of Pub. L. 110-177, 121 Stat. 2542; Sec. 870.705 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8714b(c) and 8714c(c); Public Law 104-106, 110 Stat. 521.
(f) An individual's period of coverage in a life insurance plan is credited to the 5 years of service under paragraph (a)(2) of this section if:
(1) He/she participated in the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) life insurance plan and transferred to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203; and
(2) Elected FEGLI coverage during the special enrollment period between June 1, 2012 and July 29, 2012. Evidence of the non-FEGLI period of continuous coverage will be documented in a manner designated by OPM.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier) Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes. These airplanes will have novel or unusual features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. These design features include systems that, directly or as a result of failure or malfunction, affect structural performance. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these design features. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
This action is effective on Bombardier on September 1, 2016. We must receive your comments by October 17, 2016.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-4138 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mark Freisthler, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1119; facsimile 425-227-1232.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On May 30, 2012, Bombardier applied for an amendment to type certificate no. T00003NY to include the new Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes. These airplanes are derivatives of the Model BD-700 series of airplanes currently approved under type certificate no. T00003NY, and are marketed as the Bombardier Global 7000 (Model BD-700-2A12) and Global 8000 (Model BD-700-2A13). These airplanes are ultra-long-range, executive-interior business jets.
Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Bombardier must show that the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. T00003NY, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.101.
The Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:
Systems that affect the airplane's structural performance, either directly or as a result of failure or malfunction. That is, the airplane's systems affect how it responds in maneuver and gust conditions, and thereby affect its structural capability. These systems may also affect the aeroelastic stability of the airplane. Such systems include flight-control systems, autopilots, stability-augmentation systems, load-alleviation systems, and fuel-management systems. These systems represent novel and unusual features when compared to the technology envisioned in the current airworthiness standards.
The flight-control system of the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes will consist of a full-authority fly-by-wire system with Normal and Direct modes of operation. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. Special conditions have been applied on past airplane programs, with similar systems, to require consideration of the effects of those systems on structures.
The regulatory authorities and industry developed standardized criteria in the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) forum based on the criteria defined in Advisory Circular (AC) 25.672-1, dated November 11, 1983. The ARAC recommendations have been incorporated in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Certification Specifications (CS) 25.302 and CS-25 Appendix K. FAA rulemaking on this subject is not complete, thus the need for special conditions.
These special conditions are similar to those previously applied to other airplane models and to EASA CS 25.302. Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) plans to include CS 25.302 in the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes' Canadian certification basis. The differences between these FAA special conditions and the current CS 25.302, which the FAA regards as minor, are shown below. Both these special conditions and CS 25.302:
• Specify the design load conditions to be considered. Special conditions 2(a)(i) and 2(b)(ii)(1) of these special conditions clarify that, in some cases, different load conditions are to be considered due to other special conditions or equivalent-level-of-safety findings.
• allow consideration of the probability of being in a dispatched configuration when assessing subsequent failures and potential “continuation of flight” loads (see special condition 2(d), below). These special conditions, however, also allow using probability when assessing failures that induce loads at the “time of occurrence,” whereas CS 25.302 does not. The FAA provision is relieving as compared to CS 25.302.
The FAA chooses to preserve these minor differences and go forward with this version of the special conditions.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes. Should Bombardier apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to the other model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on two model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
For airplanes equipped with systems that affect structural performance, either directly or as a result of a failure or malfunction, the influence of these systems and their failure conditions must be taken into account when showing compliance with the requirements of 14 CFR part 25, subparts C and D.
The following criteria must be used for showing compliance with these special conditions for airplanes equipped with flight-control systems, autopilots, stability-augmentation systems, load-alleviation systems, flutter-control systems, fuel-management systems, and other systems that either directly, or as a result of failure or malfunction, affect structural performance. If these special conditions are used for other systems, it may be necessary to adapt the criteria to the specific system.
1. The criteria defined herein only address the direct structural consequences of the system responses and performance. They cannot be considered in isolation, but should be included in the overall safety evaluation of the airplane. These criteria may, in some instances, duplicate standards already established for this evaluation. These criteria are only applicable to structure the failure of which could prevent continued safe flight and landing. Specific criteria that define
2. Depending upon the specific characteristics of the airplane, additional studies that go beyond the criteria provided in these special conditions may be required to demonstrate the airplane's capability to meet other realistic conditions, such as alternative gust or maneuver descriptions for an airplane equipped with a load-alleviation system.
3. The following definitions are applicable to these special conditions.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
1.
2.
a. Limit loads must be derived in all normal operating configurations of the system from all the limit conditions specified in 14 CFR part 25, subpart C (or defined by special conditions or equivalent level of safety in lieu of those specified in subpart C), taking into account any special behavior of such a system or associated functions, or any effect on the structural performance of the airplane that may occur up to the limit loads. In particular, any significant nonlinearity (rate of displacement of control surface, thresholds, or any other system nonlinearities) must be accounted for in a realistic or conservative way when deriving limit loads from limit conditions.
b. The airplane must meet the strength requirements of 14 CFR part 25 (static strength, residual strength), using the specified factors to derive ultimate loads from the limit loads defined above. The effect of nonlinearities must be investigated beyond limit conditions to ensure that the behavior of the system presents no anomaly compared to the behavior below limit conditions. However, conditions beyond limit conditions need not be considered when it can be shown that the airplane has design features that will not allow it to exceed those limit conditions.
c. The airplane must meet the aeroelastic stability requirements of § 25.629.
3.
a. At the time of occurrence. Starting from 1g level flight conditions, a realistic scenario, including pilot corrective actions, must be established to determine the loads occurring at the time of failure and immediately after the failure.
i. For static-strength substantiation, these loads, multiplied by an appropriate factor of safety that is related to the probability of occurrence of the failure, are ultimate loads to be considered for design. The factor of safety is defined in Figure 1, below.
ii. For residual-strength substantiation, the airplane must be able to withstand two thirds of the ultimate loads defined in special condition 3.a.(i). For pressurized cabins, these loads must be combined with the normal operating differential pressure.
iii. Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to the speeds defined in § 25.629(b)(2). For failure conditions that result in speeds beyond V
iv. Failures of the system that result in forced structural vibrations (oscillatory failures) must not produce loads that could result in detrimental deformation of primary structure.
b. For the continuation of the flight. For the airplane in the system-failed state, and considering any appropriate reconfiguration and flight limitations, the following apply:
i. THE loads derived from the following conditions (or used in lieu of the following conditions) at speeds up to V
1. The limit symmetrical maneuvering conditions specified in §§ 25.331 and 25.345.
2. The limit gust and turbulence conditions specified in §§ 25.341 and 25.345.
3. The limit rolling conditions specified in § 25.349, and the limit unsymmetrical conditions specified in §§ 25.367, and 25.427(b) and (c).
4. The limit yaw-maneuvering conditions specified in § 25.351.
5. The limit ground-loading conditions specified in §§ 25.473 and 25.491.
ii. For static-strength substantiation, each part of the structure must be able to withstand the loads in special condition 3.b.(i), multiplied by a factor of safety depending on the probability of being in this failure state. The factor of safety is defined in Figure 2, below.
If P
iii. For residual-strength substantiation, the airplane must be able to withstand two-thirds of the ultimate loads defined in paragraph 3.b.(ii) of these special conditions. For pressurized cabins, these loads must be combined with the normal operating differential pressure.
iv. If the loads induced by the failure condition have a significant effect on fatigue or damage tolerance, then their effects must be taken into account.
v. Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to a speed determined from Figure 3, below. Flutter clearance speeds V′ and V″ may be based on the speed limitation specified for the remainder of the flight using the margins defined by § 25.629(b).
If P
vi. Freedom from aeroelastic instability must also be shown up to V′ in Figure 3, above, for any probable system-failure condition, combined with any damage required or selected for investigation by § 25.571(b).
b. Consideration of certain failure conditions may be required by other sections of 14 CFR part 25 regardless of calculated system reliability. Where analysis shows the probability of these failure conditions to be less than 10
4. Failure indications. For system-failure detection and indication, the following apply:
a. The system must be checked for failure conditions, not extremely improbable, that degrade the structural capability below the level required by 14 CFR part 25, or that significantly reduce the reliability of the remaining system. As far as reasonably practicable, the flightcrew must be made aware of these failures before flight. Certain elements of the control system, such as mechanical and hydraulic components, may use special periodic inspections, and electronic components may use
b. The existence of any failure condition, not extremely improbable, during flight, that could significantly affect the structural capability of the airplane, and for which the associated reduction in airworthiness can be minimized by suitable flight limitations, must be signaled to the flightcrew. For example, failure conditions that result in a factor of safety between the airplane strength and the loads of 14 CFR part 25, subpart C below 1.25, or flutter margins below V”, must be signaled to the crew during flight.
5.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier Aerospace Inc. (Bombardier) Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is a sidestick controller, designed to be operated with only one hand, in lieu of the conventional wheel or stick controls. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
This action is effective on Bombardier on September 1, 2016. We must receive your comments by October 17, 2016.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-4135 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Todd Martin, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1178; facsimile 425-227-1232.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On May 30, 2012, Bombardier applied for an amendment to type certificate no. T00003NY to include the new Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes. These airplanes are derivatives of the Model BD-700 series of airplanes currently approved under type certificate no. T00003NY, and are marketed as the Bombardier Global 7000 (Model BD-700-2A12) and Global 8000 (Model BD-700-2A13). These airplanes are ultra-long-range, executive-interior business jets.
Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Bombardier must show that the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes meet the applicable provisions
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.101.
The Bombardier Inc. Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with sidestick controllers designed to be operated with only one hand.
The Bombardier Aerospace Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes are equipped with sidestick controllers instead of the conventional wheel or control stick. This controller is designed to be operated using only one hand. The requirements of § 25.397(c), which define limit pilot forces and torques for conventional wheel or stick controls, are not adequate for sidestick controllers because pilot forces are applied to sidestick controllers with only the wrist, not arms. Special conditions are necessary to specify the appropriate loading conditions for sidestick controllers.
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes. Should Bombardier apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to the other model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on two model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
In lieu of the pilot forces specified in § 25.397(c), for airplanes equipped with sidestick controls designed for force application by one wrist and not arms, the limit pilot forces are as follows:
1. For all components between and including the handle and its control stops.
2. For all other components of the sidestick control assembly, excluding the internal components of the electrical sensor assemblies, to avoid damage as a result of an in-flight jam.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier) Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This design feature is hydrophobic coatings in lieu of windshield wipers. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these design features. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
This action is effective on Bombardier on September 1, 2016. We must receive your comments by October 17, 2016.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-6363 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Bob Hettman, FAA, Propulsion and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2683; facsimile 425-227-1232.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On May 30, 2012, Bombardier applied for an amendment to type certificate no. T00003NY to include the new Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes. These airplanes are derivatives of the Model BD-700 series of airplanes currently approved under type certificate no. T00003NY, and are marketed as the Bombardier Global 7000 (Model BD-700-2A12) and Global 8000 (Model BD-700-2A13). These airplanes are ultra-long-range, executive-interior business jets.
Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Bombardier must show that the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. T00003NY, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.101.
The Bombardier Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with flightdeck design, which incorporates a hydrophobic windshield coating to provide adequate pilot compartment view in the presence of precipitation. Sole reliance on such a coating, without windshield wipers, constitutes a novel or unusual design feature for which the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards.
14 CFR 25.773(b)(1) requires a means to maintain a sufficiently clear portion of the windshield for both pilots to have an extensive view along the flight path during precipitation conditions. The regulations require this means to maintain such an area during precipitation in heavy rain at speeds up to 1.5 V
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes. Should Bombardier apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to the other model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on two
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
1. In addition to meeting the requirements of § 25.773(b)(1), the airplane must have a means to maintain a clear portion of the windshield, during precipitation conditions, such that both pilots to have a sufficiently extensive view along the ground or flight path in taxi and flight. This means must be designed to function, without continuous attention on the part of the crew, in conditions from light misting precipitation to heavy rain, at speeds from fully stopped in still air to 1.5 V
2. The precipitation removal system must comply with § 25.773.
3. Instructions to maintain the precipitation-removal system must comply with § 25.1529.
4. The materials used in the precipitation removal system must comply with § 25.603.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Models PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes installed with an affected engine mounting frame assembly. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as longitudinal material separation on the internal surface of the engine mounting frame assembly tubes. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct this condition, which could lead to partial or complete failure of the structural joint and possibly result in in-flight detachment of the engine with consequent loss of control.
This AD is effective October 6, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of October 6, 2016.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Support PC-12, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41 41 619 33 33; fax: +41 41 619 73 11; email:
Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Models PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes installed with an affected engine mounting frame assembly. The NPRM was published in the
The PC-12 Engine Mounting Frame Assembly (hereafter referred to as “EMF” in this AD), Part Number (P/N) 571.20.12.036, is a welded structure including three special tubes, P/N 571.20.12.073, P/N 571.20.12.074 and P/N 571.20.12.107, the ends of which are subject to a special swaging process during manufacturing. Longitudinal material separation on the internal surface of the special tubes was detected on few EMFs on new production aeroplanes. Investigations identified the root cause to be an incorrect accomplishment of the swaging process.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to growth of the material separation and subsequent partial or complete failure of the structural joint, possibly resulting in in-flight detachment of the engine and consequent reduced control, or loss of control, of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Pilatus issued Service Bulletin (SB) No. 71-009, now at Revision 2 (hereafter referred to as “the SB” in this AD), to provide inspection instructions for the affected EMF to detect indications of material separation.
For the reason described above, this AD requires identification and inspection of the affected EMF and, depending on the findings, their replacement with serviceable EMF.
The MCAI can be found 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 (81 FR 38115, June 13, 2016) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 38115, June 13, 2016) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 38115, June 13, 2016).
We reviewed PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PILATUS PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 71-009, Reference No: 345, Modification No: EC-15-0632, Revision 2, dated March 18, 2016; Pilatus Powerplant Mounting Frame, Removal/Installation, Date module/Technical publication 12-A-71-00-05-00A-920A-A, dated February 26, 2010, found in Pilatus Model type-PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47 MSN-101-888 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Document No. 02049, 12-A-AM-00-00-00-I; and Pilatus Powerplant Mounting Frame, Removal/Installation, Date module/Technical publication 12-B-71-00-05-00A-920A-A, dated October 4, 2010, found in Pilatus Model type-PC-12/47E MSN-1001-UP Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Document No. 02300, 12-B-AM-00-00-00-I. The service information describes procedures for determining if an affected engine mounting frame assembly (EMF) is installed, inspecting the EMF, and replacing the EMF with a serviceable EMF. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD will affect 888 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 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 $226,440, or $255 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would cost the following amounts. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
The visual and eddy current inspections would take about 3 work-hours for a cost of $255 per product.
The replacement of the EMF would take about 90 work-hours and require parts costing $33,336, for a cost of $40,986 per product.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October 6, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Models PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes, all serial numbers, that are:
(1) Installed with an affected serial number engine mounting frame assembly (EMF), part number (P/N) 571.20.12.036, listed in figure 1 of paragraph (c)(1) of this AD; and
(2) Certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 71: Power Plant.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as longitudinal material separation on the internal surface of the engine mounting frame assembly tubes (EMF). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct material separation on the internal surface of the engine mounting frame assembly tubes, which could lead to partial or complete failure of the structural joint and possibly result in in-flight detachment of the engine with consequent loss of control.
Do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (7) of this AD. If paragraphs (f)(1) through (6) of this AD have already been done before October 6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), then only paragraph (f)(7) of this AD applies.
(1) Within the compliance time identified in figure 2 of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, do an ultrasonic inspection of the swaged engine mounting tube ends of the affected EMF following the instructions of paragraph 3.B.(1) of PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD PILATUS PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 71-009, Reference No: 345, Modification No: EC-15-0632, Revision 2, dated March 18, 2016.
(2) If an indication with an echo of less than 40 percent full screen height is detected on an EMF during the ultrasonic inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, except for paragraph (f)(7), no further actions are required for this AD. Document compliance with this AD in the maintenance records.
(3) If an indication with an echo of 40 percent full screen height or more is detected on an EMF during the ultrasonic inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) through (iii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) Before further flight and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 hours TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs first, do a visual inspection of the welding and do an eddy current inspection of the tubes at the indication point detected during the ultrasonic inspection. Use the instructions of paragraphs 3.B.(2) and 3.B.(3) of PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD PILATUS PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 71-009, Reference No: 345, Modification No: EC-15-0632, Revision 2, dated March 18, 2016.
(ii) If any cracks are found during any of the visual inspections or if an indication with a signal of 20 percent or more is detected during any of the eddy current inspections required in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this AD, before further flight, replace the EMF with a serviceable EMF following the instructions in the service information listed in paragraph (f)(5) of this AD, including all subparagraphs as applicable.
(iii) Unless already done as required by paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of this AD, with>in 1,800 hours TIS or 36 months after the initial visual and eddy current inspections of the affected EMF required by paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the EMF with a serviceable EMF following the instructions in the service information listed in paragraph (f)(5) of this AD, including all subparagraphs as applicable.
(4) For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable EMF is defined as any EMF that is not listed in figure 1 of paragraph (c)(1) of this AD or an affected EMF that is listed in figure 1 of paragraph (c)(1) of this AD but has had the ultrasonic inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and had an indication with an echo of less than 40 percent full screen height.
(5) For replacement of the EMF, follow the instructions listed in paragraphs (f)(5)(i) and (ii), as applicable.
(i)
(ii)
(6) If an EMF has an indication with an echo of 40 percent or more during the ultrasonic inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, you may replace the EMF with a serviceable EMF in lieu of the visual or eddy current inspections required in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this AD. For replacement of the EMF, follow the instructions in the service information listed in paragraph (f)(5) of this AD, including all subparagraphs as applicable.
(7) As of October 6, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), do not install an EMF P/N 571.20.12.036 unless it has been determined to be a serviceable EMF as specified in paragraph (f)(4) of this AD.
(8) Airplanes with an MSN of 1556 or higher are not affected by this AD provided that the EMF has not been replaced since its manufacture. A review of the maintenance records, Airworthiness Approval Tag (FAA Form 8130-3), or other positive form of parts identification such as a shipping ticket, invoice, or direct ship authority letter, can be used to determine the serial number of the EMF.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0081, dated April 25, 2016, for related information pertaining to this AD. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) PILATUS PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 71-009, Reference No: 345, Modification No: EC-15-0632, Revision 2, dated March 18, 2016;
(ii) Pilatus Powerplant Mounting Frame, Removal/Installation, Date module/Technical publication 12-A-71-00-05-00A-920A-A, dated February 26, 2010, found in Pilatus Model type-PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47 MSN-101-888 Aircraft Maintenance Manual
(iii) Pilatus Powerplant Mounting Frame, Removal/Installation, Date module/Technical publication 12-B-71-00-05-00A-920A-A, dated October 4, 2010, found in Pilatus Model type- PC-12/47E MSN-1001-UP Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Document No. 02300, 12-B-AM-00-00-00-I.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Support PC-12, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41 41 619 33 33; fax: +41 41 619 73 11; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that published in the
This final rule is effective September 8, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 8, 2016 (81 FR 51325, August 4, 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.
Airworthiness Directive 2016-16-01, Amendment 39-18599 (81 FR 51325, August 4, 2016) (“AD 2016-16-01”), currently requires an inspection of affected structural parts in the cargo and cabin compartments to determine if proper heat treatment has been done, and replacement if necessary, for certain Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, -200, and -300 series airplanes.
As published, paragraphs (i) and (l) of the regulatory text identify the service information by the wrong service bulletin number. Where paragraphs (i) and (l) incorrectly specify Airbus Service Bulletins “A320-53-3227” and “A320-53-3228,” the correct service bulletin numbers are “A330-53-3227” and “A330-53-3228,” respectively.
Airbus has issued the following service information:
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3227, dated August 18, 2015. The service information describes procedures to inspect affected structural parts in the cargo compartment to determine if proper heat treatment has been done, and replacement of parts; and
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3228, dated August 18, 2015. The service information describes procedures to inspect affected structural parts in the cabin compartment to determine if proper heat treatment has been done, and replacement of parts.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This document corrects two errors and correctly adds the AD as an amendment to 14 CFR 39.13. Although no other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been corrected, we are publishing the entire rule in the
The effective date of this AD remains September 8, 2016.
Since this action only corrects a typographical error in two locations, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, we have determined that notice and public procedures are unnecessary.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective on September 8, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers 1175, 1180, 1287 through 1475 inclusive, 1478, 1480, 1483, and 1506.
(1) Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
(2) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
(3) Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report of a manufacturing defect (
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 72 months since first flight of the airplane, do an eddy current inspection (
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, an affected structural part in the cargo compartment is identified to have a measured value greater than 26 megasiemens per meter (MS/m), or greater than 44.8% International Annealed Copper Standard (IACS), before further flight, replace the affected structural part with a serviceable part, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3227, dated August 18, 2015.
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, an affected structural part in the cargo compartment is identified to have a measured value other than those specified in Figure A-GFAAA, Sheet 01, “Inspection Flowchart,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3227, dated August 18, 2015, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
Within 72 months since first flight of the airplane, do an eddy current inspection of affected structural parts in the cabin compartment to determine if proper heat treatment has been done as identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3228, dated August 18, 2015.
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, an affected structural part in the cabin compartment is identified to have a measured value greater than 26 MS/m or greater than 44.8% IACS, before further flight, replace the affected structural part with a serviceable part, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3228, dated August 18, 2015.
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, an affected structural part in the cabin compartment is identified to have a measured value other than those specified in Figure A-GFAAA, Sheet 01, “Inspection Flowchart,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3228, dated August 18, 2015, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2015-0212, dated November 4, 2015, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on September 8, 2016 (81 FR 51325, August 4, 2016).
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3227, dated August 18, 2015.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3228, dated August 18, 2015.
(4) 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:
(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), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-24-12 for all The Boeing Company Model 747-8 and 747-8F airplanes. AD 2013-24-12 required repetitive ultrasonic or dye penetrant inspections for cracking of the barrel nuts and bolts on each forward engine mount, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD retains the requirements of AD 2013-24-12 and also requires installing new barrel nuts at the forward engine mounts; or identifying the part number of the barrel nuts, inspecting affected barrel nuts for gaps of the strut bulkhead and forward engine mount, and doing related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD also removes airplanes from the applicability. This new AD also requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include a new structurally significant item. This AD was prompted by our determination that it is necessary to mandate the installation of new barrel nuts or new inspections to adequately address the unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked barrel nuts on a forward engine mount, which could result in reduced load capacity of the forward engine mount, separation of an engine under power from the airplane, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
This AD is effective October 6, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 6, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of December 17, 2013 (78 FR 71989, December 2, 2013).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6428; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2013-24-12, Amendment 39-17686 (78 FR 71989, December 2, 2013) (“AD 2013-24-12”). AD 2013-24-12 applied to all The Boeing Company Model 747-8 and 747-8F airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing stated that it supports the NPRM.
The Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) requested that we revise the applicability of the proposed AD to ensure that all necessary actions are applied on all applicable airplanes. CAAC explained that it compared the effectivity between Boeing Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015, which is referred to in the applicability of the proposed AD, and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-71-2332, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015 (which is referred to as the appropriate source of service information for doing the actions specified in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD). CAAC explained that there are more airplanes in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-71-2332, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015, than in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015.
We agree to clarify and revise the applicability of this AD. The difference in effectivity between Boeing Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015, and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-71-2332, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015,
The CAAC requested that we explain the change in the applicability paragraph of the proposed AD from that of AD 2013-24-12. The CAAC explained that the applicability paragraph of AD 2013-24-12 applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes. The CAAC stated that the NPRM would retain the requirements of AD 2013-24-12, but the applicability paragraph of the proposed AD only applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-8 and 747-8F airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015.
We agree to clarify. AD 2013-24-12 was issued as an interim action. Boeing developed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-71-2332, dated September 27, 2013 (currently at Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015), which contains a newly designed barrel nut. The effectivity in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015, identifies the airplanes that did not have the newly designed barrel nuts installed upon delivery. Because this AD does not include airplanes that have the newly designed barrel nuts installed during production, the applicability of AD 2013-24-12 was reduced. No changes have been made to this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed the following service information:
• Boeing Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015. The service information describes procedures for inspecting for cracked bolts and barrel nuts on the forward engine mounts, replacing cracked bolts and barrel nuts, and sending the inspection results and cracked parts to Boeing.
• Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-71-2332, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015. The service information describes procedures for installing new barrel nuts, inspecting the barrel nuts at the forward engine mount to determine the part number, inspecting for gaps of the strut bulkhead and forward engine mount, and doing applicable related investigative and corrective actions.
• Boeing 747-8/-8F Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), Document Number D011U721-02-01, dated September 2015, which includes a limitation for Structurally Significant Item (SSI) 54-50-003c. The service information describes procedures for structural inspections.
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 7 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the bootstrap installation specified in this AD. We estimate the following costs to do other necessary related investigative and corrective actions that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:
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.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject
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 have 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 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 October 6, 2016.
This AD replaces AD 2013-24-12, Amendment 39-17686 (78 FR 71989, December 2, 2013) (“AD 2013-24-12”).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-8 and 747-8F airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-71-2332, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.
This AD was prompted by a report of cracked barrel nuts found on a forward engine mount, and by the determination that additional actions are necessary to address the unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked barrel nuts on a forward engine mount, which could result in reduced load capacity of the forward engine mount, separation of an engine under power from the airplane, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (g) of AD 2013-24-12, with revised service information. For airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015: Except as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, at the time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, dated September 27, 2013, do the inspection specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, dated September 27, 2013; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, dated September 27, 2013. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015.
(1) Ultrasonic inspection for cracking of the barrel nuts on each forward engine mount, except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.
(2) Dye penetrant inspection for cracking of the bolts and barrel nuts. Whenever a dye penetrant inspection is done, all the bolts and barrel nuts on that engine mount must be removed and replaced with new or serviceable parts.
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, dated September 27, 2013; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015; specify a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after December 17, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-24-12).
(2) Where Appendix B of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, dated September 27, 2013, and Appendix B of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015, state that alternate instruments and transducers can be used, this AD requires that only equivalent instruments and transducers can be used.
(3) Where Appendix A of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, dated September 27, 2013, and Appendix A of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015, state to record flight hours and flight cycles, record the flight hours and flight cycles on the airplane and the flight hours and flight cycles for each engine since change or removal.
After any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Submit a report of the inspection results (both positive and
(1) For airplanes on which an ultrasonic inspection was done and no cracking was found, do the required actions at the time specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i) or (i)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) If the inspection was done on or after December 17, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-24-12): Submit the report within 10 days after the inspection.
(ii) If the inspection was done before December 17, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-24-12): Submit the report within 10 days after December 17, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-24-12).
(2) For airplanes on which a dye penetrant inspection was done, do the required actions at the time specified in paragraph (i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) If the inspection was done on or after December 17, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-24-12): Submit the report and return all cracked bolts and barrel nuts within 10 days after replacing the bolts and barrel nuts with new or serviceable bolts and barrel nuts in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, dated September 27, 2013; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015.
(ii) If the inspection was done before December 17, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-24-12): Submit the report and return all cracked bolts and barrel nuts within 10 days after December 17, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-24-12).
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are 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.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-71-2332, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015, except as required by paragraph (o)(1) of this AD: Do the actions specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-71-2332, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015, except as required by paragraph (o)(2) of this AD.
(1) Install new barrel nuts using the bootstrap installation method identified in Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-71-2332, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015.
(2) Do a general visual inspection to determine the part number (P/N) of the barrel nuts at the forward engine mount. If any barrel nut P/N SL4081C14SP1 is installed, before further flight, do a general visual inspection for gaps of the strut bulkhead and forward engine mount to determine if the nut-by-nut method identified in Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-71-2332, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015, can be used, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight, including the nut-by-nut replacement identified in Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-71-2332, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015. If the nut-by-nut replacement identified in Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-71-2332, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015, cannot be accomplished, install new nuts, in accordance with paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
Within 30 days after accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (k) of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Structurally Significant Item (SSI) 54-50-003c specified in Boeing 747-8/-8F Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), Document Number D011U721-02-01, dated September 2015.
Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraphs (k) and (l) of this AD terminate the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install or reinstall any barrel nut P/N SL4081C14SP1 at the forward engine mount assembly on any airplane; and only P/N SL4750NA may be installed.
(1) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-71-2332, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-71-2332, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (r) of this AD.
After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (l) of this AD, no alternative actions (
This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-71-2332, dated May 30, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (s)(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, 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, Seattle 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.
(4) AMOCs approved for AD 2013-24-12 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(5) Except as required by paragraph (o)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of
(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 Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6428; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (t)(5) and (t)(6) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on October 6, 2016.
(i) Boeing Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015.
(ii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-71-2332, Revision 1, dated May 28, 2015.
(iii) Boeing 747-8/-8F Airworthiness Limitation (AWL), Document Number D011U721-02-01, dated September 2015.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on December 17, 2013 (78 FR 71989, December 2, 2013).
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-71A2329, dated September 27, 2013.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) 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
(6) 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.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 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) airplanes. This AD was prompted by two in-service incidents of a loss of all air data information in the flight deck. This AD requires a revision of the airplane flight manual (AFM) emergency procedures section to provide procedures to guide the crew on how to stabilize the airplane airspeed and attitude for continued safe flight when a loss of all air data information has occurred in the flight deck. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of control when a loss of all air data information has occurred in the flight deck.
This AD is effective October 6, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 6, 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) airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-12, dated June 23, 2015 (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) airplanes. The MCAI states:
Two in-service incidents have been reported on CL-600-2C10 aeroplanes
Due to similarities in the air data systems, such events could happen on all Bombardier CRJ models, CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2E25. Therefore, the corrective actions for these models will be mandated once their respective Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) revisions become available.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the incorporation of AFM procedures to guide the crew to stabilize the aeroplane's airspeed and attitude for continued safe flight.
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.
The Airline Pilots Association International (ALPA) requested further investigation and system modifications for the ice crystal contamination. ALPA stated that although the NPRM proposed an amendment to the AFM procedures for the crew, it does not believe that this AFM procedure addresses the root cause of the unsafe condition.
The Air Line Pilots Association stated that the AFM revision will not address the root cause of the high-altitude icing (ice crystal contamination), and requested that further investigation be done for the ice crystal contamination issue and remedies be provided in addition to the AFM amendments.
We agree that the AFM revision will not address the root cause of the high-altitude icing (ice crystal contamination). The manufacturer is investigating the issue, but there is no timetable for a final resolution. Should the manufacturer develop modifications to prevent this problem, the FAA will consider further rulemaking. The incorporation of the AFM procedures is meant to be used to guide the crew on how to stabilize the airplane airspeed and altitude for continued safe flight in icing conditions. However, further investigation into this matter extends beyond the scope of this AD.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Bombardier, Inc. has issued Section 03-19, “Unreliable Airspeed,” of Chapter 3, “Emergency Procedures,” in the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2B19 Airplane Flight Manual CSP A-012, Revision 64B, dated December 8, 2015. The service information describes procedures to guide the crew to stabilize the airplane's airspeed and attitude for continued safe flight when a loss of all air data information has occurred in the flight deck. 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 500 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 October 6, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 7003 and subsequent.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.
This AD was prompted by two in-service incidents of a loss of all air data information in the flight deck. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of control when a loss of all air data information has occurred in the flight deck.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the emergency procedures section of the AFM by incorporating Section 03-19, “Unreliable Airspeed”, of Chapter 3, “Emergency Procedures,” in the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2B19 Airplane Flight Manual CSP A-012, Revision 64B, dated December 8, 2015.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-12, dated June 23, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket 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) Section 03-19, “Unreliable Airspeed,” of Chapter 3, “Emergency Procedures,” in the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2B19 Airplane Flight Manual CSP A-012, Revision 64B, dated December 8, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(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:
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
This rule updates the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) legal authority paragraphs in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to cite the most recent Presidential notice extending an emergency declared pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This is a procedural rule that only updates authority paragraphs of the EAR. It does not alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the EAR.
The rule is effective September 1, 2016.
William Arvin, Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Telephone: (202) 482-2440.
Authority for all parts of the EAR other than part 745 rests, in part, on Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001—National Emergency with Respect to Export Control Regulations, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 and on annual notices extending the emergency declared in that executive order. This rule revises the authority paragraphs for the affected parts of the EAR to cite the most recent such notice, which the President signed on August 4, 2016.
This rule is purely procedural and makes no changes other than to revise CFR authority paragraphs for the purpose of making the authority citations current. It does not change the text of any section of the EAR, nor does it alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the EAR.
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
4. The Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because they are unnecessary. This rule only updates legal authority citations. It clarifies information and is non-discretionary. This rule does not alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the EAR. Because these revisions are not substantive changes, it is unnecessary to provide notice and opportunity for public comment. In addition, the 30-day delay in effectiveness otherwise required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is not applicable because this rule is not a substantive rule. Because neither the Administrative Procedure Act nor any other law requires that notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Strategic and critical materials.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Inventions and patents, Research, Science and technology.
Exports.
Exports, Terrorism.
Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Agricultural commodities, Exports, Forests and forest products, Horses, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Penalties.
Boycotts, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry, Confidential business information, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Law enforcement, Penalties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Exports, Law enforcement, Penalties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Science and technology.
Accordingly, parts 730, 732, 734, 736, 738, 740, 742, 743, 746, 747, 748, 750, 754, 756, 758, 760, 762, 764, 766, 768, 770, 772 and 774 of the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774) are amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
Federal Trade Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission is amending the Hart-Scott-Rodino (“HSR”) Premerger Notification Rules (the “Rules”) that require the parties to certain mergers and acquisitions to file reports with the Federal Trade Commission (“the Commission” or “FTC”) and the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (“the Assistant Attorney General” or “DOJ”) (together the “Antitrust Agencies” or “Agencies”) and to wait a specified period of time before consummating such transactions. These amendments update the Rules to allow for submission of the Premerger Notification and Report Form (“Form”) and accompanying documents (together the “HSR Filing”) on digital video/versatile disc (“DVD”), and clarify the Instructions to the Form.
Effective September 1, 2016.
Robert L. Jones, Assistant Director, Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition, Room 5301, Federal Trade Commission, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 326-3100, Email:
Section 7A of the Clayton Act (the “Act”) requires the parties to certain mergers or acquisitions to file with the Commission and DOJ to allow the Agencies to conduct their initial review of a proposed transaction's competitive impact and requires the parties to wait a specified period of time before consummating such transactions. The reporting requirement and the waiting period that it triggers are intended to enable the Antitrust Agencies to determine whether a proposed merger or acquisition may violate the antitrust laws if consummated and, when appropriate, to seek a preliminary injunction in federal court to prevent consummation, pursuant to Section 7 of the Act.
Section 7A(d)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(d)(1), directs the Commission, with the concurrence of the Assistant Attorney General, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, to require that premerger notification be in such form and contain such information and documentary material as may be necessary and appropriate to determine whether the proposed transaction may, if consummated, violate the antitrust laws. Section 7A(d)(2) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(d)(2), grants the Commission, with the concurrence of the Assistant Attorney General, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, the authority to define the terms used in the Act and prescribe such other rules as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of Section 7A.
Pursuant to that authority, the Commission, with the concurrence of the Assistant Attorney General, developed the Rules, codified in 16 CFR parts 801, 802 and 803, and the Form and its associated Instructions, codified at part 803—appendix, to govern the form of premerger notifications to be provided by merging parties.
HSR Filings provide the Agencies with the information and documentary material necessary for an initial evaluation of the potential anticompetitive impact of significant mergers, acquisitions and certain similar transactions. Currently, all HSR Filings are submitted in paper. Through these amendments to the Rules, the Agencies will allow the submission of HSR Filings digitally on DVD (“DVD filings”). The acceptance of DVD filings requires certain conforming changes to the Instructions to the Form, so the Commission is also taking this opportunity to clarify the Instructions and make them easier to use.
Since the inception of the HSR program, the HSR Form and its attachments have been submitted in paper. In 2006, an electronic filing option was introduced that would allow filers to upload HSR Filings directly to the Agencies but that option failed to gain traction due to the limitations of the underlying technology, and it was soon discontinued. While the Agencies continue to explore an electronic filing option, they have decided to accept the submission of HSR Filings digitally on DVD. Accordingly, the Commission amends part 803 to delete references to the discontinued electronic filing option and revises these sections and the Instructions to the Form found in the appendix to part 803 to allow for DVD filings. Documents submitted by the parties with the filing are typically created and stored in digital format. Allowing parties to submit these digital files on electronic media will be more efficient and cost-effective, providing benefits to filing parties as well as the Agencies:
To provide maximum flexibility, filing parties will still have the traditional option of submitting HSR Filings in paper. Submitting an HSR Filing partially on DVD and partially in paper will not be permitted, however. Additionally, DVD submissions must be accompanied by original hard copies of the cover letter, certification and affidavit. The individual rule amendments associated with DVD filing are described more fully below.
Additionally, this rulemaking makes minor changes to the Form Instructions,
The internet portal established in 2006,
Section 803.2(e)(1) currently allows filers to forego the physical production of documents responsive to Item 4(b) by incorporating by reference documents previously filed with the Agencies in other transactions. The purpose of the rule was to avoid the costly duplication of responsive documents that were already in the possession of the Agencies. However, given § 803.2(e)(2), which allows parties to cite to an Internet address rather than provide hard copies of responsive documents, and the ease of copying documents onto a DVD without any expensive hard copy duplication, § 803.2 is being amended to delete § 803.2(e)(1). The existing, current, § 803.2(e)(2) will be renumbered to § 803.2(e), and the new § 803.2(e) has been amended for clarity.
To ensure the submission of compatible and readable electronic files, and to avoid problems and delays in processing HSR Filings, paragraph (f) of § 803.2 has been amended to require the use of specific formatting when submitting an HSR Filing on DVD, and to remove the reference to
Section 803.3 identifies the specific information that a filing person must provide when not responding to an Item on the Form. Paragraph (d) identifies the specifics of making a claim of privilege. Paragraph (d) is amended to require the titles and/or positions of the author of a document, the addressee, and all recipients of the document being withheld or redacted under a claim of privilege to enable the Agencies to better assess if the privilege applies.
Section 803.5 requires an affidavit from the filing person attesting to the good faith intention of the person filing to proceed with the transaction. The affidavit must be attached to the Form at the time of filing. Paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3), and (b) are amended to address inclusion of the affidavit when using the DVD filing option. If only a scanned version of the signed affidavit is available at the time of filing, it must be submitted on the DVD, and the original signed hard copy should be provided to the FTC as soon as possible.
Persons required by the Act to submit HSR Filings must comply with specified statutory waiting periods before consummating the transaction. Section 803.10(c)(1)(i) is amended to define the “date of receipt and means of delivery” for purposes of determining when the waiting period begins for filings submitted on DVD. Delivery is to be effected by providing a DVD filing directly to the designated agency offices, by either hand or certified or registered mail, FedEx or UPS, during normal business hours.
References and paragraphs relating exclusively to “electronic” filing, as well as references to
A number of changes have been made to the Form Instructions, including changes unrelated to DVD filing, that are intended to clarify the Instructions and simplify the process of completing an HSR Form. Many of these changes involve new formatting or the substitution or deletion of a word, sentence or paragraph. The more significant changes entail the following amendments:
Accounts for the option of filing using a DVD, including specific formatting and submission requirements.
Clarifies that estimated financial information provided in the Form should include an “est.” notation. Also specifies that additional pages should be included within the Form, not with the Documentary Attachments.
Eliminates the requirement for an explanatory attachment regarding valuation.
Clarifies the process and requirements for submitting HSR filing fees.
Specifies that identification of a second contact person is required.
Clarifies how to respond where a transaction involves a mixed deal including voting securities, and/or non-corporate interests, and/or assets.
Reorganized and reworded for clarity. Clarifies that the description of the transaction should include a brief and simple description of the relevant assets or business operation(s) to be acquired. Deletes requirement for identification of expected dates of major events and deletes paragraph discussing acquisitions “from a holder other than the issuer or unincorporated entity” to reduce confusion.
Clarifies that agreement schedules are not required unless they represent some agreement between the parties (
Reorganized and amended to clarify the types of reports that are acceptable (
Clarifies that document title, date, and author information is required for both 4(c) and 4(d) documents. Additionally amended to clarify the proper labeling convention for these documents, as well as the privilege log requirements outlined in § 803.3(d).
Simplifies the instructions.
Amended to clarify that only shareholders with 5% or more, but less than 50% must be identified.
Clarifies the instructions.
Amended to clarify that all six-digit NAICS industry code overlaps must be reported, regardless of whether there is a ten-digit NAICS overlap.
Amended to clarify which entities should be listed.
Amended to change the order and organization of the NAICS codes for clarity, and renumbered the sub-sections. Amended to clarify that geographic information should be provided by state postal code abbreviations, including identifying the number of states reported, and that a response of “national” is acceptable in certain cases in lieu of listing every state.
Amended to more clearly state that county and city/town information is required for the specific NAICS codes outlined in this section. Reformatted for readability.
Amended to clarify that Item 8 is related to codes reported in Item 5.
The Commission finds good cause to adopt these changes without prior public comment. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), notice and comment are not required “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
The Commission is updating the Rules, Form and Instructions to provide the option of submitting HSR Filings on DVD, and to clarify the Form Instructions. Paper copy submission will remain available. These amendments to the HSR Rules and Form fall within the category of rules covering agency procedure and practice that are exempt from the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA.
For these reasons, the Commission finds that there is good cause for adopting this final rule as effective on September 1, 2016 without prior public comment.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires that the agency conduct an initial and final regulatory analysis of the anticipated economic impact of the proposed amendments on small businesses, except where the agency head certifies that the regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements apply, however, only to rules or amendments that are subject to the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA.
These changes do not contain any record maintenance, reporting or disclosure requirements that would constitute agency “collections of information” that would have to be submitted for clearance and approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
Antitrust.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Trade Commission amends 16 CFR part 803 as set forth below:
15 U.S.C. 18a(d).
(a) The notification required by the act shall be the Notification and Report Form set forth in the appendix to this part, as amended from time to time. All acquiring and acquired persons required to file notification by the act and these rules shall do so by completing and filing the Notification and Report Form, in accordance with the instructions thereon and these rules. The current version of the Form can be obtained at
(e) For documents required by item 4(b) of the Notification and Report Form, a person filing the notification may, instead of submitting a document, provide a cite to an operative Internet address directly linking to the document, if the linked document is complete and payment is not required to access the document. If an Internet address becomes inoperative during the waiting period, or the document is otherwise rendered inaccessible or incomplete, upon notification by the Commission or Assistant Attorney General, the parties must make the document available to the agencies by either referencing an operative Internet address where the complete document may be accessed or by providing paper copies to the agencies as provided in § 803.10(c)(1) by 5 p.m. on the next regular business day. Failure to make the document available, by the Internet or by providing paper copies, by 5 p.m. on the next regular business day, will result in notice of a deficient filing pursuant to § 803.10(c)(2).
(f) Filings made via DVD must comply with all format requirements set forth at the Premerger Notification Office pages at
(d) Where noncompliance is based on a claim of privilege, a statement of the claim of privilege and all facts relied on in support thereof, including the identity of each document, its author, the author's title/position, addressee, the addressee's title/position, date, subject matter, all recipients of the original and of any copies, the recipients' titles/positions, the document's present location, and who has control of it.
(a)(1)
(3) The affidavit required by this paragraph must have attached to it a copy of the written notice received by the acquired person pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section. For DVD filings, the written notice (in a form specified in the instructions) must be included on the DVD.
(b)
(c)(1) * * *
(i) For paper copy filings and DVD filings, the date of receipt shall be the date on which delivery is effected to the designated offices (Premerger Notification Office, Federal Trade Commission, Room 5301, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, and Director of Civil Enforcement, Office of Operations, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room #3335, Washington, DC 20530) during normal business hours. Delivery should be effected directly to the designated offices, either by hand or by certified or registered mail (including FedEx and UPS). In the event one or both of the delivery sites are unavailable, the FTC and DOJ may designate alternate sites for delivery of the filing. Notification of the alternate delivery sites will normally be made through a press release and, if possible, on the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor.
Final rule; correcting amendment.
OSHA published a final rule on occupational exposure to respirable crystalline silica on March 25, 2016 which became effective on June 23, 2016. This document corrects typographical errors in the final rule by revising these sections.
Effective September 1, 2016.
Annette Iannucci, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3718, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1950; email
On March 25, 2016, OSHA published a final rule entitled Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica (81 FR 16285-16890). The final rule retained the preceding permissible exposure limits (PELs) for respirable crystalline silica in general industry (29 CFR 1910.1000, Table Z-3), shipyards (29 CFR 1915.1000, Table Z), and construction (29 CFR 1926.55, appendix A), and added footnotes to make clear that these PELs apply to any sectors or operations where the new PEL of 50 μg/m
This document corrects typographical errors in the formulas for the preceding PELs, so that they will appear as they did prior to publication of the final rule.
Cancer, Chemicals, Cristobalite, Crystalline silica, Hazardous substances, Health, Lung diseases, Occupational safety and health, Quartz, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Silica, Silicosis, Tridymite.
This document was prepared under the direction of David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. It is issued under the following authorities: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (the Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 3704); section 41 of the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); Secretary of Labor's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912 (1/25/2012)); and 29 CFR part 1911.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble above, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is amending 29 CFR parts 1910, 1915, and 1926 as follows:
29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order Numbers 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable.
Sections 1910.6, 1910.7, 1910.8 and 1910.9 also issued under 29 CFR 1911. Section 1910.7(f) also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 29 U.S.C. 9a, 5 U.S.C. 553; Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-222); Pub. L. 11-8 and 111-317; and OMB Circular A-25 (dated July 8, 1993) (58 FR 38142, July 15, 1993).
The measurements under this note refer to the use of an AEC (now NRC) instrument. The respirable fraction of coal dust is determined with an MRE; the figure corresponding to that of 2.4 mg/m
Section 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.
Sections 1915.120 and 1915.152 of 29 CFR also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.
The revisions read as follows:
* The PELs are 8-hour TWAs unless otherwise noted; a (C) designation denotes a ceiling limit. They are to be determined from breathing-zone air samples.
Section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3704); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Sections 1926.58, 1926.59, 1926.60, and 1926.65 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553 and 29 CFR part 1911.
Section 1926.61 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 6 U.S.C. 553.
Section 1926.62 also issued under section 1031 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4853).
Section 1926.65 also issued under section 126 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, as amended (reprinted at 29 U.S.C.A. 655 Note), and 5 U.S.C. 553.
The revisions read as follows:
* The PELs are 8-hour TWAs unless otherwise noted; a (C) designation denotes a ceiling limit.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Connecticut on November 19, 2012. We are approving Connecticut's request to remove two regulations from its SIP that regulate “open burning” and “portable fuel container spillage control.” In place of the open burning regulation, we are approving into the Connecticut SIP a Connecticut statute that controls open burning. We are also approving a definition of “brush,” which was included in a December 14, 2015 SIP submittal by Connecticut to meet infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act for the 2012 fine particle (PM
This direct final rule will be effective October 31, 2016, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 3, 2016. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0471 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In addition, copies of the state submittal are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency: The Bureau of Air Management, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-1630.
Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square-Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1684, fax number (617) 918-0684, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
On November 19, 2012, the State of Connecticut submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consists of a request to remove two regulations from its SIP that regulate open burning (Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) section 22a-174-17 (formerly section 19-508-17) and “portable fuel container spillage control” (RCSA section 22a-174-43), and to add into the SIP a statute, Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) section 22a-174(f), that regulates open burning.
Connecticut adopted regulations to control open burning in 1972. On May 31, 1972, EPA approved RCSA section 19-508-17 “Control of Open Burning” into the Connecticut SIP (37 FR 10842). In 1983, the state re-codified section 19-508-17 as section 22a-174-17 and, subsequently, adopted revisions to CGS section 22a-174(f) to control open burning, effective March 30, 2000. Connecticut intended that the statute supersede the regulation. Although CGS section 22a-174(f) authorizes the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) to adopt regulations to control open burning, the agency did not adopt a new regulation and, instead, enforces CGS section 22a-174(f) as the state's sole authority for regulation of open burning.
On September 27, 2011, CT DEEP proposed to repeal RCSA section 22a-174-17 and held a public hearing on November 9, 2011. CT DEEP repealed RCSA section 22a-174-17, effective on September 10, 2012. On November 19, 2012, CT DEEP submitted a SIP revision to EPA to remove RCSA section 19-508-17 “Control of Open Burning” from the Connecticut SIP and to replace it with a Connecticut statute, CGS section 22a-174(f). Because implementation of this statute depends on having a definition of “brush,” Connecticut included a definition of this term in its December 14, 2015 SIP submittal to meet infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act for the 2012 fine particle (PM
Connecticut adopted regulations to control portable fuel container spillage in 2004. On August 31, 2006, EPA approved RCSA section 22a-174-43 “Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control” into the Connecticut SIP (71 FR 51761). In 2007, EPA issued a regulation entitled “Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources” (72 FR 8428), which included new federal requirements for portable fuel containers. See 40 CFR part 59, subpart F “Control of Evaporative Emissions from New and In-Use Portable Fuel Containers.”
On September 27, 2011, the CT DEEP proposed to repeal RCSA section 22a-174-43 “Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control” and held a public hearing on November 9, 2011. CT DEEP repealed RCSA section 22a-174-43, effective on September 10, 2012. On November 19, 2012, CT DEEP submitted a SIP revision to EPA to remove RCSA section 22a-174-43 “Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control” from the Connecticut SIP.
The open burning rule, RCSA section 19-508-17, which is currently in the Connecticut SIP, identifies the types of open fires that are allowed within state boundaries, and the types of fires that require a written certificate from the Commissioner. Open fires that are allowed include barbecues or other outdoor open fires for cooking food; campfires, bonfires, and other fires for ceremonial or recreational purposes; fires to abate a fire hazard as directed by a responsible fire official; fires in devices used by construction or other workers for heating purposes; and small fires needed for activities such as street installation or paving activities and repairing utilities.
Fires that require a written certificate from the Commissioner include fires for fire-fighting training; fires for preventing or controlling diseases or pests, including agricultural diseases and pests; agricultural burning for vegetation management; fires for the disposal of dangerous materials where no reasonable alternative disposal method is available; and other fires which the Commissioner determines are necessary for protection of public health.
CGS section 22a-174(f) allows local open-burning officials to issue permits for open burning on residential property and for fire training, insect control, agricultural purposes, natural disaster clean-up, wildlife habitat and vegetative management and ecological sustainability. It also allows officials to issue permits for open burning of brush in municipal landfills, transfer stations and municipal recycling centers. Open burning of brush is not allowed when national or state air quality standards may be exceeded, where it may create a hazardous health condition, when forest fire danger is extreme, where woodland or grass land is within 100 feet of the proposed burn, or where prohibited by municipal ordinance. Burning of leaves, demolition waste or other solid waste in municipal landfills is also prohibited. The statute also establishes a process for certifying local open burning officials.
Based on a comparison of provisions in SIP-approved RCSA section 19-508-17 and CGS section 22a-174(f), EPA has determined that the statute is at least as stringent as the regulation except in one regard. CGS section 22a-174(f) includes the term “brush,” but does not include a definition of this term. Instead of
The regulation that controls portable fuel container spillage presently in the Connecticut SIP, RCSA section 22a-174-43, was adopted by the state in 2004, and applies to any person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, or manufactures a portable fuel container or spout for use in Connecticut. In 2007, EPA promulgated national evaporative emission standards for portable fuel containers. EPA's regulation prohibits manufacturers or importers from selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction into commerce in the United States, or importing, any new portable fuel container that is subject to the emissions standards of the regulation and is manufactured after December 31, 2008, unless it is covered by a valid certificate of conformity, it is labeled as required, and it complies with all of the applicable requirements of the regulation, including compliance with the emissions standards for its useful life. After June 30, 2009, no manufacturer or importer may sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver into commerce in the United States, or import any new portable fuel container that was manufactured prior to January 1, 2009 unless it meets the requirements of the regulation.
EPA's regulation also prohibits wholesale distributors from selling, offering for sale, or distributing any portable fuel container in the United States that is subject to the emissions standards of the regulation and is manufactured after December 31, 2008, unless it is covered by a valid certificate of conformity and is labeled as required. After December 31, 2009, no wholesale distributor may sell, offer for sale, or distribute in the United States any portable fuel container that was manufactured prior to January 1, 2009 unless it meets all of the requirements of the regulation. After December 31, 2009, all new portable fuel containers shall be deemed to be manufactured after December 31, 2008 unless they are in retail inventory.
Even though the applicability date for SIP-approved RCSA section 22a-174-43 is earlier, May 1, 2004, all fuel containers must now (in the year 2016 and beyond) meet the federal regulation, which is as stringent as RCSA section 22a-174-43. Therefore, EPA has determined that removal of RCSA section 22a-174-43 from the Connecticut SIP is consistent with the Clean Air Act section 110(l) anti-backsliding requirements and is approvable.
EPA is approving Connecticut's request, submitted to EPA on November 19, 2012, to remove from the Connecticut SIP RCSA section 19-508-17 “Control of Open Burning” and section 22a-174-43 “Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control.” We are also incorporating into the Connecticut SIP the following Connecticut statute which was included in the November 19, 2012 submittal: Connecticut General Statute, Title 446c, Section 22a-174 (Formerly Sec. 19-508) “Powers of the commissioner. Regulations. Fees. Exemptions. General permits. Appeal of commissioner's action re permit applications,” (f) “Open Burning,” effective March 30, 2000. In addition, EPA is approving the definition of “brush” as contained in RCSA section 22a-174-1, which was included in Connecticut's December 14, 2015 submittal to meet infrastructure requirements under sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act for the 2012 PM
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on October 31, 2016 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Connecticut General Statute, Title 446c, Section 22a-174 (Formerly Sec. 19-508) “Powers of the commissioner. Regulations. Fees. Exemptions. General permits. Appeal of commissioner's action re permit applications,” (f) “Open burning,” effective March 30, 2000, as published in the General Statutes of Connecticut, revision of 1958, revised to January 1, 2015, volume 8, described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA is also finalizing the incorporation by reference of RCSA section 22a-174-1(19) “brush,” effective February 1, 2010, as published in the State of Connecticut General Statutes, revised to January 1, 2015, described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. Note that the definition for paragraph (19) in the statute that is incorporated by reference is the same as the definition that became effective in Connecticut on February 1, 2010. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 31, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The addition reads as follows:
(c) * * *
(113) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection on November 19, 2012 and December 14, 2015.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Section 19-508-17, “Control of Open Burning,” which was approved in the March 1972 plan (see paragraph (b)) is removed and replaced with the following:
(1) Connecticut General Statute, Title 22A “Environmental Protection,” Chapter 446c “Air Pollution Control,” Section 22a-174 “(Formerly Sec. 19-508). Powers of the commissioner. Regulations. Fees. Exemptions. General permits. Appeal of commissioner's action re permit applications,” paragraph (f), effective March 30, 2000, as published in the General Statutes of Connecticut, revision of 1958, revised to January 1, 2015, volume 8.
(2) Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) section 22a-174-1 entitled “Definitions,” revisions to Section 22a-174-1(19), as published in the Connecticut Law Journal on July 1, 2014.
(B) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials. [Reserved]
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of final policy and public interest waiver.
This final policy consists of the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) policy statement regarding its implementation of the phased-in increase in domestic content for rolling stock under the FTA's Buy America statute, as amended by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Through this final policy, FTA is providing guidance to transit agencies and transit vehicle manufacturers regarding how they are to implement the FAST Act's statutory amendments. Additionally, FTA is providing notice of public interest waivers of Buy America domestic content requirements for rolling stock procurements in limited circumstances.
The final policy takes effect on September 1, 2016.
Cecelia Comito, Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, phone: (202) 366-2217, or email,
This Notice provides guidance and clarification to transit agencies and transit vehicle manufacturers regarding FTA's implementation of the FAST Act's amendments to 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(2)(C).
Section 3011 of the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94, enacted December 4, 2015) amended the rolling stock waiver in 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(2)(C) to require a two-step increase in the domestic content of rolling stock as follows:
When procuring rolling stock with FTA financial assistance (including train control, communication, traction power, and rolling stock prototypes), the cost of components and subcomponents produced in the United States for fiscal years 2016 and 2017, is more than 60 percent of the cost of all components of the rolling stock; for fiscal years 2018 and 2019, is more than 65 percent of the cost of all components of the rolling stock; and for fiscal year 2020 and each
Given the potential effect of the FAST Act changes to vehicle procurements by the statutory use of the term “produced,” transit agencies and transit vehicle manufacturers asked FTA to provide specific guidance on the applicability of the FAST Act's new Buy America provisions to contracts entered into before, on, or after October 1, 2015, the effective date set forth in section 1003 of the FAST Act.
Under existing law (49 U.S.C. 5325(e)), recipients of FTA financial assistance may enter into rolling stock contracts for up to five years for buses and seven years for railcars. In FTA Circular 4220.1F, “Third Party Contracting Guidance,” FTA permits these five- and seven-year periods to cover the recipient's “material requirements” for rolling stock and replacement needs from the effective date of the contract through the end of the fifth or seventh year. FTA does not require that “the recipient must obtain delivery, acceptance, or even fabrication in five or seven years—instead, it means only that FTA limits a contract to purchasing no more than the recipient's material requirements for rolling stock or replacement parts for five or seven years, based on the effective date of the contract.”
The FAST Act identified two points in time: (1) “when
In its proposed policy statement, FTA proposed that the FAST Act amendments would not apply to a contract entered into before the effective date of the FAST Act,
However, recipients who were not direct parties to a contract executed before October 1, 2015, would not be allowed to exercise options (a/k/a “piggybacking”) on those contracts and thereby could not take advantage of the lower domestic content requirement. Because the assignment of options to a third party results in the third party and the vendor entering into a new contract that would be entered into after the effective date of the FAST Act, FTA proposed to apply the increased domestic content requirements to vehicles scheduled for delivery in FY 2018 and beyond.
Therefore, the proposed policy statement proposed to retain the 60 percent domestic content requirement for purchase orders placed against State purchasing schedules before October 1, 2015, regardless of the ultimate delivery date(s). However, for purchase orders placed against State purchasing schedules on or after October 1, 2015, FTA proposed to adopt the elevated FAST Act content requirements.
This interpretation is consistent with the language of the statute, follows Congress' intention to increase the domestic content for vehicles produced in FY2018 or later, and adheres to basic principles of statutory construction.
Thus, for vehicles to be delivered in FY2018 and 2019, FTA proposed that more than 65 percent of the subcomponents of that component, by cost, must be of domestic origin, and for FY2020 and beyond, more than 70 percent of the subcomponents of the component must be of domestic origin. The existing requirement that manufacture of the component take place in the United States would continue to apply, as well as the provision that states that if a component is determined to be of domestic origin, its entire cost may be used in calculating the domestic value of the rolling stock, regardless of the value of its individual subcomponents.
FTA recognized that the FAST Act amendments may produce significant hardship for two categories of recipients and manufacturers: (1) Recipients who entered into contracts or placed purchase orders against State schedules between October 1, 2015 and December 4, 2015 (
Under 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(2)(A), the Secretary of Transportation may waive the Buy America requirements if the Secretary finds that applying the Buy America requirements would be “inconsistent with the public interest.”
In a separate Notice accompanying the proposed policy statement (Docket FTA-2016-0020), FTA sought comment on a general public interest waiver for those affected parties (81 FR 20051, April 6, 2016). FTA proposed a public interest waiver for the following categories of contracts: (1) For contracts entered into between the FAST Act's effective date and date of enactment (
FTA received comments from 24 entities in Docket FTA-2016-0019 and comments from 14 entities in Docket FTA-2016-0020 from a broad cross-section of transit agencies, transit vehicle manufacturers, transit industry trade associations, the passenger vessel industry, an alliance of domestic manufacturing interests, compliance auditors, and the general public. The comments and proposals were diverse. The comments and questions can be categorized into the following primary categories:
Numerous commenters objected to the proposed policy statement's use of the delivery schedule as the determining factor. Some suggested that domestic content should be based on the solicitation date, which establishes the transit agency's domestic content expectations for prospective bidders, and allows suppliers to begin identifying domestic suppliers. They claimed that using the solicitation date of an invitation for bids or a request for proposals provides certainty to transit vehicle manufacturers, as transit agencies and transit vehicle manufacturers cannot forecast when a contract will be signed or when the vehicles will be delivered.
As an alternative to the solicitation date, a significant number of commenters proposed that FTA apply the domestic content requirements based upon the date a contract was entered into, for three primary reasons—consistency in vehicle components to avoid cardinal changes and increased pricing risks, reduction of administrative burdens, and consistency with the approach Congress used in implementing the last legislative increase in domestic content, which took place in 1987.
According to transit vehicle manufacturers, their vehicle bid quotes are based on the price of components known at the time the vehicle manufacturer receives the transit agency's solicitation and begins planning its supply chain by contacting potential suppliers. According to commenters, FTA's proposed policy had the potential of requiring three different component calculations based on a multi-year delivery schedule stemming from a single contract—one for vehicles delivered during FYs 2016-2017, another for FYs 2018-2019, and a third for FYs 2020 and beyond. This would require the vehicle manufacturer to identify new and potentially untried domestic suppliers for each successive configuration, integrate those new components in the midst of an ongoing production line, and incur the risk of price increases for those new components, as well as the possibility that the replacement or substitution of components might be characterized by some competitors as a “cardinal change.” Commenters also noted that a vehicle scheduled for delivery during the FY 2018-2019 time frame with a 65 percent domestic content requirement could find itself subject to a 70 percent domestic content requirement if delays and slippages beyond the control of the transit agency and the transit vehicle manufacturer resulted in the vehicle being delivered in FY 2020 or later. They requested a constant domestic content level that would exist for the duration of the production contract.
In addition, transit agencies expressed concerns regarding the administrative costs and burdens of performing three separate pre-award audits and three separate post-award audits on three potentially different vehicle configurations. As a term and condition of assistance, recipients of FTA funding must conduct a pre-award and post-delivery audit on every rolling stock model they procure. If domestic content was based on the delivery date, a transit agency with a multi-year delivery schedule faced the possibility that their vehicles could have three different levels of domestic content, which they would need to verify and confirm. In addition, unforeseen delays in production could result in a vehicle delivery occurring in a subsequent fiscal year with a higher domestic content obligation.
Several commenters pointed out that when Congress elevated the domestic content requirement from 50 percent to 60 percent in section 337 of Title III of the Surface Transportation and Urban Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-17) (STURAA), Congress provided that a vehicle's domestic content percentage would be based on the date the procurement contract was signed. Commenters suggested that FTA follow that approach.
Finally, one commenter requested clarification on the Notice's use of the term “advertised” when referring to “solicitations for bids or requests for proposals that were advertised before December 4, 2015.” FTA will address this request in the discussion of the public interest waiver, below.
Basing domestic content standards on the date the solicitation is made available to the public and potential bidders or on the date the contract is executed is contrary to language in the FAST Act. Using the date of solicitation would allow transit agencies to lock in a lower domestic content threshold for a contract that may be signed at a date when the higher domestic content standards are in effect, contrary to the statutory language. FTA believes Congress provided adequate advance notice in the FAST Act regarding the increase in domestic content, such that manufacturers and vendors have sufficient time to amend open solicitations for bids prior to the submission of bid proposals or the execution of a contract, and in fact, FTA is aware of transit agencies that have amended solicitations after they have been published. FTA also is aware that some vehicle manufacturers have indicated through a survey of pre-award audit data that they are already capable of meeting a higher domestic content threshold.
FTA does not find the request to follow the language used in earlier revisions to domestic content requirements to be persuasive. When
UMTA (FTA's predecessor agency) quickly published an implementing Notice that stated:
The Buy America domestic content requirement for buses, rolling stock and associated equipment will be increased from its existing 50 percent to 55 percent at the end of three years, and to 60 percent at the end of five years, except that any company that has met the existing Buy America requirement would be exempted from these increases for all contracts entered into before April 1, 1992. In addition, the rolling stock price differential waiver is increased from its current 10 percent to 25 percent, and the definition of “components” is specifically to include “subcomponents.” UMTA will be revising its Buy America regulation to reflect these changes. (52 FR 15440, April 28, 1987)
UMTA then published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement these new provisions (53 FR 32994, August 29, 1988), issuing its Final Rule on January 9, 1991 (56 FR 926). In the Final Rule, UMTA stated that it “believes that Congress intended to apply the increased domestic content requirements on an accelerated basis to firms entering the marketplace after April 2, 1987, and that it intended to grandfather existing firms that had complied with previous Buy America requirements regardless of the number of contracts or the product supplied (
Although Congress had the precedent of the timing language used in STURAA when it drafted the FAST Act, Congress declined to reintroduce that language.
However, FTA finds the requests that the domestic content of a vehicle be fixed upon a single date that establishes the domestic content level for the duration of the contract to be persuasive, for the reasons articulated by the commenters. For those reasons, the applicable domestic content percentage will be based on the scheduled delivery date of the first production vehicle (
This approach of using the date of first production vehicle delivery best reflects the statutory language of the FAST Act, while providing the consistency in componentry and relieving the need to conduct multiple pre-award and post-delivery audits raised as concerns by numerous commenters. The FAST Act's phased-in approach provides adequate notice to transit agencies and transit vehicle manufacturer suppliers of the domestic content requirements.
FTA received numerous comments regarding the effect of the higher domestic content provisions on options, joint procurements, and piggyback procurements. One commenter objected to extending the domestic content percentages throughout the life of a multi-year contract, including the exercise of any options, believing that Congress intended to increase domestic content as soon as possible, and that allowing the exercise of options would lock in a lower domestic content threshold well through FY 2020 and beyond. In contrast, several transit agencies and vehicle manufacturers proposed that the domestic content for rolling stock extend to the exercise of options for additional vehicles of identical manufacture, citing the benefits to rolling stock manufacturers and transit agencies, such as the predictability of pricing, the availability of components, consistency within the supply chain, and facilitating the ongoing manufacturing of rolling stock. They also cited the retroactive effect of such an approach, stating that applying a higher domestic content standard to a pre-existing contract that established a lower threshold was inconsistent with public interest and general principles of contract law.
One commenter sought clarity regarding the applicability of the proposed policy guidance to joint procurement contracts executed prior to the effective date of the FAST Act.
Several commenters objected to FTA's proposed guidance that would not allow recipients to piggyback on another agency's contract unless the vehicles being produced under the original contract met the domestic content requirements at the time the optioned vehicles are delivered.
FTA's proposed policy recognized the differences between the exercise of options by the original parties to a contract or a joint procurement between two or more purchasers and a single vehicle manufacturer, and piggyback procurements by third parties who were not parties to the original contract. With regard to the exercise of options, FTA is persuaded that the predictability of pricing and consistency within the supply chain outweighs any risks that the FAST Act is being circumvented. Therefore, FTA is modifying its final policy guidance to reflect that the date of the delivery of the first production vehicle under the contract controls the domestic content of all vehicles delivered under the contract, including vehicles delivered pursuant to the exercise of options. The exercise of options by the original parties to the contract or joint procurement establishes a predictable contract price for the buyers, and provides a standardized component list for the transit vehicle manufacturer, while at the same time it allows the transit vehicle manufacturer to keep its production line open, ensuring American jobs. However, only the original parties to a contract (including signatories to a joint procurement) are entitled to the benefits of exercising rights under that procurement.
FTA is not persuaded by the commenters who objected to FTA's limitations on the use of piggyback
In its April 6 publication, FTA proposed to extend the elevated domestic content requirements to the subcomponents that constitute a component. FTA received relatively little comment on this specific provision. Several commenters proposed that a component's domestic content be based upon the date the component was offered in response to a solicitation, rather than upon the component's actual date of manufacture or the vehicle's intended delivery date. In support of their position, transit vehicle manufacturers said that they solicit bids for vendors for specific vehicle components. The prices submitted by those bidders are based upon quotes received from their suppliers and sub-suppliers, and the transit vehicle manufacturer has limited ability to leverage that bidder to increase the domestic content of its subcomponents. In addition, changing suppliers midway through a production schedule would be disruptive to production schedules, particularly if a manufacturer must switch to an untested supplier solely to meet a gradual increase in domestic content. In contrast, the association supporting domestic manufacturing expressed concerns that maintaining fixed domestic component and subcomponent levels throughout the life of the contract discourages new rolling stock suppliers from entering the market.
With the exception of components manufactured by the transit vehicle manufacturer itself, the vehicle manufacturer has little influence over the subcomponent content of a given component, and given the prevalence of multi-year vehicle delivery schedules, the effective date for a component's domestic content will be based upon the requirements in the contract. For solicitations advertised after the effective date of this Notice, however, the solicitation must include the appropriate statutory domestic content percentages for both components and subcomponents.
FTA is sensitive to the position that the elevated domestic content requirements eventually will encourage new entrants into the vehicle supply chain. All contracts signed after the FAST Act's effective date, including piggyback procurements and procurements off a state's procurement schedule, will be subject to the higher domestic content standards, resulting in more domestic suppliers entering the supply chain and the incorporation of more domestic content into vehicles funded with FTA financial assistance.
For purposes of Buy America, rolling stock includes train control, communication, and traction power equipment. 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(2)(C). See also 49 CFR 661.11(t), (u), and (v). One commenter pointed out that the delivery of components on a construction contract differs from the delivery schedule of a rolling stock contract. Unlike rolling stock procurements where the transit agency is contracting for a fleet of homogenous transit vehicles, a construction contract may encompass a communication system, a traction power system, and a train control system, all of which may have differing construction schedules and varying component lists. Attempting to impose a domestic content based on when components are delivered to a job site, or the completion date of a particular construction segment may force the substitution of materials midway through a construction project, or in a worse-case scenario, may force the removal and replacement of components if delays push the completion of the contract into a subsequent fiscal year. The commenter proposed that the contracting date for the construction project would be a better determinant of the domestic content requirement, rather than one based on the installation date of each component or the completion of a particular portion of a construction contract.
FTA agrees with the commenter that there are significant differences between procurements for identical units of rolling stock, and a construction contract consisting of multiple deliverables, and therefore, the contracting award dates for train control, communication, and traction power systems will determine the contract's domestic content percentage. If a contract was signed in FY2016 or FY2017, the resulting components must consist of at least 60 percent domestically-manufactured components. If a construction contract is awarded during FY 2018 or FY 2019, the contract must include a domestic content percentage for that project that exceeds the 65 percent threshold. And if a construction contract is awarded in FY 2020 or beyond, the percentage of domestically-manufactured components must exceed 70 percent.
A transit vehicle rebuilder proposed that the FAST Act amendments should not apply to overhauls, rebuilds or remanufacture of any buses procured prior to the effective date of the FAST Act. The commenter also asked that the requirements be applied consistently throughout the duration of a contract so that the resulting vehicles will have consistent Buy America content. The commenter argues that the FAST Act amendments should not be interpreted in any manner that decreases transit agencies' abilities to complete their intended overhauls by forcing a higher standard of American content at the time of overhaul than when the bus was originally manufactured.
Consistent with the commenter's recommendation, FTA agrees that the domestic content in effect at the time the vehicle was delivered will apply to any future contracts for overhaul, rebuild, or remanufacturing projects, limited to the parties on the original contract.
FTA received two comments from the passenger ferry vessel industry and a ferry operator that proposed an implementation process for ferry vessels that based the domestic content requirement on the date of vessel contracting, rather than on the delivery date of the vessel. Commenters argued that it can be hard at the time of the contract's execution to anticipate with specificity exactly when the constructed ferry vessel will be finished, pass required regulatory inspections and sea trials, and be delivered to the customer. For vessels scheduled to be delivered over a multi-year program, they noted the difficulty and inefficiency in
FTA acknowledges that the long lead times associated with issuing design specifications, obtaining Coast Guard and other regulatory approval, bid solicitations, and construction of a ferry vessel exceed that required for other traditional types of rolling stock. Accordingly, for ferry vessels, the date on which a transit agency signs the procurement contract will govern the domestic content for all vessels delivered under that contract.
One commenter asked that FTA address the applicability of section 3011 of the FAST Act, which added 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(5), allowing the inclusion of steel and iron produced in the United States and incorporated into a rolling stock frame or car shell outside the United States, provided that the frame or car shell is imported back into the United States for final assembly.
Consistent with the statutory provision, the cost of any domestic steel and iron may be included in the calculation of the transit vehicle's domestic content, provided that the average cost of the vehicle exceeds $300,000, as provided by the FAST Act. Manufacturers may include the cost of domestic steel and iron on vehicles produced after October 1, 2015, the effective date of the FAST Act.
In a Notice published concurrently with the proposed policy statement (81 FR 20051, April 6, 2016), FTA invited the public to comment on a proposed public interest waiver that would apply the current domestic content standard to rolling stock contracts entered into between October 1, 2015 (the effective date of the FAST Act) and December 4, 2015, (the date on which the Act was enacted), and for contracts entered into after December 4, 2015, as a result of solicitations for bids or requests for proposals that were advertised before December 4, 2015.
FTA received 14 comments on the proposed waiver from: A transit industry trade association, a passenger vessel trade group, several public transportation agencies, numerous transit vehicle manufacturers and remanufacturers, and Buy America consultants, all of whom supported the proposed waiver. Among the cited benefits of a waiver were the avoidance of additional costs to transit agencies that would have to rewrite and re-advertise existing solicitations to incorporate the new domestic content thresholds, the administrative costs to vehicle manufacturers who would need to identify and solicit new domestic suppliers, and most importantly, predictable delays in the acquisition of new transit vehicles, which would pose a disservice to transit riders.
The passenger vessel group asked that FTA extend the waiver to ferry vessel procurements for which the vessel design was substantially complete before the enactment of the FAST Act; vehicle remanufacturers asked that the waiver extend to contracts for rebuilds, overhauls, and remanufacturing entered into prior to the enactment date of the FAST Act; and several transit agencies and vehicle manufacturers asked that the waiver extend to contract options assigned to another transit agency if the contract was entered into prior to the FAST Act's enactment date.
Based on the foregoing discussion of the FAST Act's implementation and input from commenters, FTA believes that a request for a public interest waiver to address contracts signed before the date the FAST Act was enacted is reasonable, and is extending the waiver to contracts for ferry vessels and to contracts for the remanufacturing, rebuilding, and overhaul of a recipient's existing fleet. However, as stated previously, FTA will not extend pre-FAST Act domestic content percentages to options exercised by a third party after the effective date of the Act.
Further, to avoid the disruption of ongoing contract solicitations and to facilitate the delivery of transit vehicles to the public, FTA is extending the waiver to contract solicitations advertised on or after December 4, 2015, provided the contract is awarded within 60 days after the publication date of this Notice. If a solicitation was advertised (
A request for a public interest waiver should set forth the detailed justification for the proposed waiver, including information about the history of the procurement and the burden on the recipient and/or the industry in complying with the FAST Act. Public interest waivers should be narrowly tailored and FTA will not generally look favorably on waivers that provide for contracts that include the exercise of options for vehicles that will be delivered beyond FY2020. FTA will act expeditiously on public interest waiver requests that provide the information requested.
The FAST Act amendments do not apply to contracts entered into before October 1, 2015, even if the contract provides for the delivery of the first production vehicle after FY2017. For contracts entered into before October 1, 2015, all vehicles delivered under the original contract base order and any properly exercised options by recipients who are direct parties to the contract may contain a domestic content of more than 60 percent, per the pre-FAST Act requirements. Recipients who are not direct parties to a contract executed before October 1, 2015, however, may
Therefore, for purchase orders placed against State purchasing schedules before October 1, 2015, for the delivery of rolling stock in FY2018 and beyond, the increased domestic content requirements will not apply. For purchase orders placed against State schedules on or after October 1, 2015, for rolling stock that will be delivered in FY 2016 or 2017, the domestic content requirement must exceed 60%. For purchase orders placed against State schedules for rolling stock that will be delivered in FYs 2018 or 2019, the domestic content must exceed 65%, and for purchase orders placed against State schedules for rolling stock that will be delivered in FY 2020 or beyond, the domestic content must exceed 70%.
Thus, for vehicles to be delivered in FY2018 or 2019, for a component to be of domestic content, more than 65 percent of the subcomponents of that component, by cost, must be of domestic origin, and for FY2020 or beyond, more than 70 percent of the subcomponents of the component must be of domestic origin. The requirement that manufacture of the component take place in the United States still applies. Additionally, if a component is determined to be of domestic origin, its entire cost may be used in calculating the cost of content of an end product.
FTA is issuing two general public interest waivers to address two categories of recipients and manufacturers: (1) Recipients who entered into contracts or placed purchase orders against State schedules between October 1, 2015 and December 4, 2015; and (2) recipients who have entered into contracts after December 4, 2015, as a result of solicitations for bids or requests for proposals that were advertised before December 4, 2015. In addition, FTA is issuing a third public interest waiver for recipients who solicited contracts on or after December 4, 2015, provided they enter into a contract within 60 days of publication of this Notice.
Under 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(2)(A), the Administrator may waive the Buy America requirements if the Administrator finds that applying the Buy America requirements would be inconsistent with the public interest. “In determining whether the conditions exist to grant a public interest waiver, the Administrator will consider all appropriate factors on a case-by-case basis . . . When granting a public interest waiver, the Administrator shall issue a detailed written statement justifying why the waiver is in the public interest. The Administrator shall publish this justification in the
Recipients may apply to FTA for individual public interest waivers for contracts that do not fall within the scope of a general public interest waiver. A request for a public interest waiver should set forth the detailed justification for the proposed waiver, including information about the history of the procurement and the burden on the recipient and/or the industry in complying with the FAST Act. Public interest waivers should be narrowly tailored and FTA will not generally look favorably on waivers that provide for contracts that include the exercise of options for vehicles that will be delivered beyond FY2020. FTA will act expeditiously on public interest waiver requests that provide the information requested.
Because the statute is self-effectuating, the changes are effective upon the FAST Act's enactment. FTA will be initiating a subsequent rulemaking updating 49 CFR part 661 to reflect these changes; however, today's Policy Statement and Waiver represents FTA's implementation of the FAST Act provisions during this interim period.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements an accountability measure (AM) for the other porgies complex recreational sector in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic for the 2016 fishing year through this temporary rule. In the South Atlantic, the other porgies complex includes jolthead porgy, knobbed porgy, whitebone porgy, scup, and saucereye porgy. NMFS has determined that recreational landings of species in the other porgies complex have reached the recreational annual catch limit (ACL). Therefore, NMFS closes the recreational sector for the other porgies complex in the South Atlantic EEZ on September 3, 2016. This recreational closure is necessary to protect the other porgies complex resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, September 3, 2016, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2017.
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes species in the other porgies complex and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The recreational ACL for the other porgies complex is 106,914 lb (48,495 kg), round weight. In accordance with regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(w)(2)(i), if the recreational ACL is met, or is projected to be met, the NMFS Assistant Administrator (AA) will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year. Recreational landings in 2016 from the Southeast Fisheries Science Center indicate that the recreational ACL has already been harvested. As a result, the recreational sector for the other porgies complex will be closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, September 3, 2016.
During the closure, the bag and possession limits for species in the other porgies complex in or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero. The recreational sector for the other porgies complex will reopen on January 1, 2017, the beginning of the 2017 recreational fishing year.
The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the South Atlantic other porgies complex and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(w)(2)(i) 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 AA finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the recreational sector for the other porgies complex 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 are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing the AM has already been 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 there is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the species in the other porgies complex. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially allow the recreational sector to further exceed its 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
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary final rule; adjustments to 2016 northern albacore quota and 2016 Atlantic bluefin tuna Reserve category quota.
NMFS adjusts the northern albacore (NALB) annual baseline quota for 2016 with available underharvest of the 2015 adjusted U.S. NALB quota. NMFS also augments the 2016 Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) Reserve category quota with available underharvest of the 2015 adjusted U.S. BFT quota. This action is necessary to implement binding recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Effective September 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016.
Supporting documents such as the Environmental Assessments and Fishery Management Plans and their Amendments described below may be downloaded from the HMS Web site at
Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale, 978-281-9260.
Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971
The NALB quota implementation and quota adjustment processes, along with the BFT quota adjustment process, were previously analyzed in Amendment 7, which included a Final Environmental Impact Statement, Final Regulatory Impact Review, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Final Social Impact Statement, published in August 2014. ICCAT conducted another BFT stock assessment update in 2014, and, after considering the scientific advice in the stock assessment, adopted a recommendation regarding western Atlantic bluefin tuna management that increases the U.S. bluefin tuna quota for 2015 and 2016 (ICCAT Recommendation 14-05: “Recommendation by ICCAT Amending the Supplemental Recommendation by ICCAT Concerning the Western Atlantic BFT Rebuilding Program”). NMFS published a final rule to implement that baseline annual U.S. BFT quota on August 28, 2015 (“BFT Quota Rule,” 80 FR 52198), and prepared an Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for that action.
As described in the final rule implementing Amendment 7, since 1998, ICCAT has adopted recommendations regarding the NALB fishery. A multiyear management measure for northern albacore tuna was first adopted in 2003, setting the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) at 34,500 mt. ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) assessed the northern albacore tuna stock in 2009 and concluded that the stock continues to be overfished with overfishing occurring, recommending a level of catch of no more than 28,000 mt to meet ICCAT management objectives by 2020. In response, in 2009, ICCAT established the NALB rebuilding program via Recommendation 09-05, effective for 2010 and 2011, setting a 28,000-mt TAC and including several provisions to limit catches by individual ICCAT Contracting Parties (for major and minor harvesters) and reduce the amount of unharvested quota that could be carried forward from one year to the next, from 50 percent to 25 percent of a Contracting Party's initial catch quota. Subsequent ICCAT NALB Recommendations 11-04 and 13-05 (both entitled “Supplemental Recommendation by ICCAT Concerning the North Atlantic Albacore Rebuilding Program”) maintained the TAC at 28,000 mt for 2012 through 2016 and contained specific recommendations regarding the NALB rebuilding program, including allocation of the annual TAC among the European Union, Chinese Taipei, the United States, and Venezuela. The U.S. quota for 2012 through 2016 has been 527 mt, annually. These recommendations limit Japanese northern albacore tuna catches to 4 percent in weight of its total Atlantic bigeye tuna longline catch, and limits the catches of other ICCAT parties to 200 mt. Recommendation 13-05 also specifies that quota adjustments for a given year's underharvest or overharvest must be made within 2 years from the subject year (
The annual U.S. NALB quota of 527 mt is codified at § 635.27(e) and will remain in effect until changed (for instance, if a new ICCAT NALB TAC recommendation is adopted). Because ICCAT adopted TACs for 2014, 2015, and 2016 in Recommendation 13-05, NMFS currently anticipates that these annual base quotas would be in effect through 2016, but they will remain in place unless and until a new NALB TAC and catch limits are adopted by ICCAT.
Amendment 7 established the process by which NMFS adjusts the U.S. annual
Based on NMFS' best available information as of July 21, 2016, the total 2015 NALB catch is 247.70 mt, which is 293.61 mt less than the 2015 adjusted quota (
Pursuant to Amendment 7, NMFS augments the Reserve category quota to the extent that underharvest from the prior year's adjusted U.S. BFT quota is available. NMFS makes such adjustments consistent with ICCAT limits and when complete catch information for the prior year is available and finalized. Consistent with the BFT quota regulations, NMFS may allocate any portion of the Reserve category quota for inseason or annual adjustments to any fishing category quota pursuant to regulatory determination criteria described at § 635.27(a)(8), or for scientific research.
NMFS implemented ICCAT Recommendation 14-05 in the BFT quota final rule in August 2015 (80 FR 52198, August 28, 2015). That rulemaking implemented Recommendation 14-05, which included a 2,000-mt western BFT TAC of 2,000 mt (for 2015 and 2016) and the recommended annual U.S. baseline quota of 1,058.79 mt. The total annual U.S. quota, including the 25 mt to account for bycatch related to pelagic longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant gear restricted area (NED) is 1,083.79 mt. The maximum underharvest that a Contracting Party may carry forward from one year to the next is 10 percent of its total quota.
The baseline annual U.S. BFT quota of 1,058.79 mt is codified at § 635.27(a) and will remain in effect until changed (for instance, if a new ICCAT western BFT TAC recommendation is adopted). Because ICCAT adopted TACs for 2015 and 2016 in Recommendation 14-05, NMFS currently anticipates that these annual baseline quotas would be in effect through 2016, but they will remain in place unless and until a new western BFT TAC and catch limits are adopted by ICCAT.
Based on NMFS' best available information as of July 21, 2016, the total 2015 BFT catch is 896.30 mt. This total catch includes 876.80 mt of landings and 19.50 mt of dead discards, which includes the best available estimate of 14.60 mt of dead discards for the pelagic longline fishery and the observed dead discards of 4.90 mt for the purse seine fishery. The total catch of 896.30 mt is 282.36 mt less than the quota available for 2015 landings and dead discards (
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP and its amendments, ATCA, and other applicable law.
The AA finds that it would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:
NMFS solicited and accepted public comment on the NALB quota implementation and quota adjustment processes, along with the BFT quota adjustment process, as part of the Amendment 7 rulemaking. Comments on these provisions in response to the proposed Amendment 7 rulemaking were generally supportive and were addressed in the Response to Comments section of the Amendment 7 final rule. (See comments 18, 19, and 105 at 79 FR 71530-71531 and 71553). This action applies the formula noticed to the public in the earlier action (Amendment 7), using the best available data regarding 2015 catch and underharvest and calculating allowable underharvest consistent with ICCAT recommendations. The Amendment 7 rulemaking specifically provided prior notice of, and accepted public comment on, these formulaic quota adjustment processes and the manner in which they occur. The application of this formula in this action does not have discretionary aspects requiring additional agency consideration and thus public comment for this action would not and could not result in any changes.
There is good cause under U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date and make the rule effective upon publication in the
Additionally, to prevent confusion and potential overharvests, these adjustments should be in place as soon as possible to allow the impacted sectors to benefit from any subsequent
This action is being taken under §§ 635.27(e) and 635.27(a)(10) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
This final rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
16 U.S.C. 971
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; inseason adjustments to biennial groundfish management measures.
This final rule announces inseason changes to management measures in the Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries. This action, which is authorized by the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP), is intended to allow fisheries to access more abundant groundfish stocks while protecting overfished and depleted stocks.
This final rule is effective September 1, 2016.
Benjamin Mann, phone: 206-526-6117, fax: 206-526-6736, or email:
This rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register Web site at
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council)—in coordination with Pacific Coast Treaty Indian Tribes and the States of Washington, Oregon, and California—recommended changes to groundfish management measures at its June 21-28, 2016, meeting. Specifically, the Council recommended taking a portion of the Pacific ocean perch (POP) initially deducted from the annual catch limit (ACL) and making it available to the mothership (MS) sector; a trip limit increase for black rockfish in the limited entry fixed gear (LEFG) and open access (OA) fisheries in northern California; and trip limit reductions in the OA sablefish daily trip limit (DTL) fishery north of 36° N. lat.
As part of biennial harvest specifications and management measures, ACLs are set for non-whiting groundfish species, deductions are made “off-the-top” from the ACL to account for various sources of mortality (including scientific research activities) and the remainder, the fishery harvest guideline, is allocated among the various groundfish fisheries. The limited availability of overfished species that can be taken as incidental catch in the Pacific whiting fishery, particularly darkblotched rockfish, POP, and canary rockfish, led NMFS to implement sector-specific allocations for these species to the Pacific whiting fisheries. If the sector-specific allocation for a non-whiting species is reached, NMFS may close one or more of the at-sea sectors automatically, per regulations at § 660.60(d).
At the June, 2016 meeting, MS and catcher/processor (C/P) sectors requested more POP to accommodate higher than anticipated harvest and prevent closure of the fishery prior to harvesting their allocations of Pacific whiting.
At the start of 2016, the MS and C/P sectors of the Pacific whiting fishery were allocated 7.2 mt and 10.2 mt of POP respectively, per regulations at § 660.55(c)(1)(i)(B). According to the best fishery information available at the June 2016 meeting, POP bycatch in the MS sector was approximately double 2016 POP bycatch projections. At that time, best available information regarding bycatch rates of POP in the MS sector indicated that if those rates continued, only 53 percent (38,246 mt) of the Pacific whiting allocation would be harvested by the end of the 2016 fishery. Therefore, the Council recommended that NMFS monitor fishery harvest of Pacific whiting and POP relative to their respective at-sea sector allocations, update projections of Pacific whiting allocation attainment based on new, updated POP bycatch rates, and if necessary, transfer some POP that would otherwise go unharvested to either the MS or C/P sectors as needed.
Current projections by the Northwest Fishery Science Center indicate that approximately 3.7 mt of POP off-the-top deductions for scientific research would remain unharvested through the end of the year. As of August 11, 2016, the C/P sector has only harvested approximately 4.1 percent (0.41 mt) of its 2016 POP allocation indicating the C/P sector has sufficient POP allocation to cover their Pacific whiting harvests. However, approximately 70 percent (5.0 mt) of the total MS sector POP allocation has been harvested and only approximately 47 percent (34,256.46 mt) of the Pacific whiting allocation has been harvested. Using the most recent catch data through August 11, 2016, NMFS projects that at current rates, the MS sector will only harvest approximately 49 percent (35,486.35 mt) of its total Pacific whiting allocation (74,415 mt) before reaching the 7.2 mt POP allocation. Therefore, consistent with the Council's June recommendation to take into account the best estimates of the amount of POP available and the updated bycatch rates in the MS and C/P fisheries, NMFS is transferring 3.0 mt of POP to the at-sea sectors.
This rule transfers 3.0 mt of POP that is expected to go unharvested from the scientific research off-the-top deduction to the MS sector. This transfer increases the MS sector POP allocation from 7.2 mt to 10.2 mt. The remaining amount in the off-the-top deduction for scientific research is anticipated to go
Black rockfish are caught in nearshore commercial and recreational fisheries. Black rockfish is a healthy stock that co-occurs with nearshore overfished rockfish species (
Reduced opportunities in other fisheries (
This final rule makes routine inseason adjustments to groundfish fishery management measures, based on the best available information. This document also serves as notice of an automatic action, based on the best available information. Both are consistent with the PCGFMP and its implementing regulations.
This action is taken under the authority of 50 CFR 660.60(c) and (d) and 660.140(a)(3) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The aggregate data upon which these actions are based are available for public inspection at the Office of the Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, during business hours.
NMFS finds good cause to waive prior public notice and comment on the revisions to groundfish management measures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Also, for the same reasons, NMFS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), so that the regulatory changes in this final rule may become effective September 1, 2016.
At its June 2016 meeting, the Council recommended that NMFS consider a transfer of POP to the MS and C/P sectors, as needed based on the most recent fishery information. The Council recommended that the transfer be implemented as quickly as possible once the amount of POP, that would otherwise go unharvested in scientific research activities, was estimated. Updated catch information from scientific research activities became available in early August. There was not sufficient time after the June 2016 Council meeting or after research catch information was available to undergo proposed and final rulemaking before this action needs to be in effect. For the action implemented in this final rule, affording the time necessary for prior notice and opportunity for public comment would prevent transfer of POP to the MS sector until later in the season, or potentially eliminate the possibility of doing so during the 2016 calendar year entirely, and is therefore impracticable. Failing to transfer POP to the MS sector in a timely manner could result in unnecessary restriction of fisheries if the MS sector exceeded their allocations. Providing the MS sector fishermen an opportunity to harvest their limits of Pacific whiting without interruption and, when combined with harvest from other sectors, without exceeding the POP ACL, allows harvest as intended by the Council, consistent with the best scientific information available. The Pacific whiting fishery contributes a large amount of revenue to the coastal communities of Washington and Oregon and this change allows continued harvest of Pacific whiting while continuing to prevent ACLs of overfished species and the allocations for target species from being exceeded.
The Council also recommended commercial trip limit changes for black rockfish and sablefish. These changes are based on the best available information, consistent with the PCGFMP and its implementing regulations. At the June Council meeting the Council recommended that increase to black rockfish trip limits be implemented as quickly as possible during the two-month cumulative limit period and that the decrease to sablefish trip limits be implemented as quickly as possible, by the start of the next cumulative limit period. There was not sufficient time after that meeting to draft this document and undergo proposed and final rulemaking before these actions need to be in effect. For the actions to be implemented in this final rule, affording the time necessary for prior notice and opportunity for public comment would prevent NMFS from managing fisheries using the best available science to approach, without exceeding, the ACLs for federally managed species in accordance with the PCGFMP and applicable law. The adjustments to management measures in this document affect commercial fisheries off Washington, Oregon, and California. These increases to trip limits must be implemented as quickly as possible during the two-month cumulative limit period to allow OA
For the actions to be implemented in this final rule, affording the time necessary for prior notice and opportunity for public comment would prevent NMFS from managing fisheries using the best available science to prevent overfishing in accordance with the PCGFMP and applicable law.
Delaying these changes would also keep management measures in place that are not based on the best available information. Such delay would impair achievement of the PCGFMP goals and objectives of managing for appropriate harvest levels while providing for year-round fishing and marketing opportunities.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, NMFS finds good cause to waive prior notice and comment and to waive the delay in effectiveness.
Fisheries, Fishing, Indian fisheries.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for species that comprise the deep-water species fishery by vessels using trawl gear in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary because the fourth seasonal apportionment of the Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the trawl deep-water species fishery in the GOA has been reached.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), September 1, 2016, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., October 1, 2016.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The fourth seasonal apportionment of the Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the deep-water species in the GOA has been determined to be 0 metric tons (mt). This apportionment was established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (81 FR 14740,
In accordance with § 679.21(d)(6)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the fourth seasonal apportionment of Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for deep-water species by vessels using trawl gear in the GOA has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for the deep-water species by vessels using trawl gear in the GOA. The species and species groups that comprise the deep-water species fishery include sablefish, rockfish, deep-water flatfish, rex sole, and arrowtooth flounder. This closure does not apply to fishing by vessels participating in the cooperative fishery in the Rockfish Program for the Central GOA.
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of the deep-water species fishery by vessels using trawl gear in the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 25, 2016.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Privacy Office, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Homeland Security is giving concurrent notice of a newly established system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 for the “Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-022 Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) System of Records” and this proposed rulemaking. In this proposed rulemaking, the Department proposes to exempt portions of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.
Comments must be received on or before October 3, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-DHS-2016-0064, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions please contact: Debra L. Danisek, (202) 344-1610, Acting CBP Privacy Officer, Privacy and Diversity Office, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20229. For privacy questions, please contact: Jonathan R. Cantor, (202) 343-1717, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-DHS/CBP-022 Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) System of Records.” This system of records will allow DHS/CBP to collect and maintain records on nonimmigrant aliens who (1) hold a passport that was issued by an identified country approved for inclusion in the EVUS program and (2) have been issued a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category seeking to travel to the United States. The system of records will also cover records of other persons, including U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, whose name is provided to DHS as part of a nonimmigrant alien's EVUS enrollment. Requiring aliens holding passports of identified countries containing U.S. nonimmigrant visas of a designated category with multiple year validity will allow DHS/CBP to collect updated information. The system is used to ensure visa holder's information remains current. The information is also used to separately determine whether any admissibility issues may need to be addressed outside the EVUS enrollment process by vetting the information against selected security and law enforcement databases at DHS, including the use of CBP's TECS (not an acronym) (DHS/CBP-011 U.S. Customs and Border Protection TECS, December 19, 2008, 73 FR 77778) and the Automated Targeting System (ATS) (DHS/CBP-006 Automated Targeting System, May 22, 2012, 77 FR 30297). In addition, ATS retains a copy of EVUS enrollment data to identify EVUS enrollees who may pose a security risk to the United States. The Automated Targeting System maintains copies of key elements of certain databases in order to minimize the impact of processing searches on the operational systems and to act as a backup for certain operational systems. DHS may also vet EVUS enrollment information against security and law enforcement databases at other federal agencies to enhance DHS's ability to determine whether the enrollee poses a security risk to the United States or, although addressed through a separate process, is admissible to the United States. The results of this vetting may inform DHS's assessment of whether the enrollee's travel poses a law enforcement or security risk and whether the proposed travel should be permitted.
DHS is issuing this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to exempt portions of DHS/CBP-022 Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) System of Records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), DHS will claim exemption from secs. (c)(3), (e)(8), and (g) of the Privacy Act of 1974,
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate personally identifiable information. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative
In appropriate circumstances, when compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement purposes of this system and the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemptions may be waived on a case by case basis.
A notice of system of records for DHS/CBP-022 Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) System of Records is also published in this issue of the
Freedom of information; Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend chapter I of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; (6 U.S.C. 101
74. The DHS/CBP-022 Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) System of Records consists of electronic and paper records and will be used by DHS and its components. The DHS/CBP-022 Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) System of Records is a repository of information held by DHS in connection with its several and varied missions and functions, including, but not limited to the enforcement of civil and criminal laws; investigations, inquiries, and proceedings there under; and national security and intelligence activities. The DHS/CBP-022 Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) System of Records contains information that is collected by, on behalf of, in support of, or in cooperation with DHS and its components and may contain personally identifiable information collected by other Federal, State, local, tribal, foreign, or international government agencies. The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (e)(8), and (g). Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3). Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:
(a) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process.
(b) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because compliance would interfere with DHS's ability to obtain, serve, and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law enforcement mechanisms that may be filed under seal and could result in disclosure of investigative techniques, procedures, and evidence.
(c) From subsection (g) (Civil Remedies) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of petition.
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) received a petition requesting that the Commission amend the agency's 1987 Statement of Interpretation and Enforcement Policy regarding labeling of household products containing methylene chloride (Policy Statement). The petition asks the Commission to expand the Policy Statement to address acute hazards from inhalation of methylene chloride vapors in addition to the chronic hazards addressed by the current Policy Statement. The Commission invites written comments concerning the petition.
The Office of the Secretary must receive comments on the petition by October 31, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2016-0019, by any of the following methods:
Todd Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-6833.
The Commission received a petition from the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc. (Petitioner) requesting that the Commission amend the agency's Statement of Interpretation and Enforcement Policy regarding labeling of household products containing methylene chloride (Policy Statement). The Policy Statement provides the Commission's guidance for labeling of household products containing methylene chloride, focusing particularly on paint strippers. 52 FR 34698 (Sep. 14, 1987). The Policy Statement sets forth general principles and examples for labeling to warn consumers of potential cancer hazards; it does not address acute hazards.
The Petitioner asks the Commission to expand the Policy Statement to address acute hazards from inhalation of methylene chloride vapors. Petitioner notes that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) issued a Hazard Alert identifying at least 14 deaths associated with use of methylene chloride-containing paint strippers by professional bathtub refinishing operations (
By this notice, the Commission seeks comments concerning this petition. Interested parties may obtain a copy of the petition from the Commission's Web site:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of public hearing; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing a 2-day public hearing to obtain input on issues related to communications by manufacturers, packers, and distributors, including their representatives (collectively “firms”), regarding FDA-regulated drugs and medical devices for humans, including those that are licensed as biological products, and animal drugs (collectively, “medical products”). FDA is engaged in a comprehensive review of its regulations and policies governing firms' communications about unapproved uses of approved/cleared medical products, and the input from this meeting will inform FDA's policy development in this area. FDA is seeking input on a number of specific questions, but is interested in any other pertinent information participants would like to share.
The public hearing will be held on November 9 and 10, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The meeting may be extended or end early depending on the level of public participation. Persons seeking to attend or present at the public hearing must register by October 19, 2016. Electronic or written comments will be accepted after the public hearing until January 9, 2017.
The public hearing will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
A link to the live Webcast of this public hearing will be available at
Kristin Davis, Office of Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 4252, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-0418, email:
FDA is responsible for regulating medical products (
Under the FDA Authorities, in general, firms are required to submit data and other information to FDA for premarket review demonstrating a medical product is safe and effective for each of its intended uses before they introduce the product into interstate commerce for those intended uses. During FDA premarket review of medical products, the Agency also generally reviews proposed labeling for the intended use(s) of the product to ensure that the labeling provides adequate information for the safe and effective use of the product. The FDA Authorities also prohibit firms from marketing medical products with false or misleading labeling and similarly restrict certain medical product advertising.
The premarket review and labeling and advertising provisions of the FDA Authorities address critical public health objectives. The current regulatory framework was developed in response to public health tragedies, particularly those that occurred when firms could distribute drugs and devices without independent, premarket review of scientific evidence of the products' safety and efficacy.
Congress also determined that safety and effectiveness must be evaluated for each intended use of a medical product to prevent the harm that occurs when patients are prescribed or use ineffective treatments and to ensure that the benefits of an intended use outweigh its risks. Under the FDA Authorities, FDA evaluates whether a medical product is safe for a particular use by comparing the expected therapeutic benefits against the risk associated with that use. The weighing of benefit and risk for each intended use is necessary as a matter of science to protect the public health: A product considered “safe and effective” for one disease or condition or patient population cannot automatically be considered “safe and effective” for another disease or condition or patient population. For example, a drug with severe adverse effects may be considered safe and effective for treating metastatic lung cancer, but be unlikely to have a positive benefit-risk balance for treating high blood pressure. Similarly, a non-absorbable suture cleared or approved for wound closure on the skin's surface might raise significant new safety and effectiveness concerns if used internally.
Notwithstanding the importance of the FDA Authorities in protecting public health, health care professionals are generally permitted to prescribe or use approved/cleared medical products for unapproved uses when they judge that the unapproved use is medically appropriate for their individual patients,
Health care professionals already can access considerable scientific information about unapproved uses, for example, through public sources such as scientific journals, clinical practice guidelines, and compendia or by requesting that information from firms.
Not all communications of information about unapproved uses help support public health. For example, communications that emphasize a medical product's claimed benefits, while minimizing the limitations of the supporting evidence, or minimizing the product's known or potential adverse effects, may inappropriately influence prescribing or use decisions in a manner that is not in a patient's best interest. FDA is interested in comment on both the pros and cons for public health associated with firms' communications of unapproved use information and the kinds of limitations or requirements that would be appropriate to protect patients from harm. We are also interested in any supporting data related to these issues. In addition, allowing additional communications about unapproved uses could have other indirect consequences on public health, which are important to understand and anticipate. For example, FDA is interested in information to better understand how increased communications about unapproved uses would impact incentives to conduct biomedical research submitted for FDA review and subjects' willingness to participate in such research.
The Agency is aware of technological and business changes that are increasingly affecting medical decision making and prescribing. There are a growing number of entities in the health care system with a stake in evaluating evidence to assess the rational and systematic use of medical products. As medical providers have increasingly been consolidated into integrated systems, the use of system measurements of quality and measurements of the appropriate use of medical products has increased, and insurance carriers, health care systems, and similar entities may restrict coverage for medical products based on assessments of value and employ performance measures to monitor appropriate use and outcomes. FDA is interested in understanding whether and how these changes may be able to provide an impetus for the development of additional high-quality data to address the balance of benefits and risks of each use of a medical product and, if so, in what way they would affect incentives for submission of this data to the Agency for marketing authorization.
The purpose of this public hearing is to obtain comments on FDA's regulation of firms' communications about medical products, with a particular focus on firms' communications about unapproved uses of their approved/cleared medical products. FDA is seeking feedback from a broad group of stakeholders, including, but not limited to, health care professionals and professional societies, patients and their caregivers, patient advocates, representatives from regulated industry, health care organizations, payors and insurers, academic institutions, public interest groups, and the general public.
To facilitate stakeholder feedback, FDA sets forth some questions in this section. These questions are not meant to be exhaustive. We encourage
1. FDA is interested in input from stakeholders on how increased communications from firms about unapproved uses could impact the public health, and on whether the impact would differ across different categories of medical products. For example,
a. What are the benefits for clinical decision making, research, coverage, reimbursement, or other purposes (please specify) if firms communicate to health care professionals, payors, researchers, and/or patients more information, including preliminary or inconclusive information, about unapproved uses of approved/cleared medical products? What are the drawbacks and risks? Are there safeguards or requirements that would effectively mitigate any drawbacks or risks?
b. What information or systems exist to help FDA determine how firms' increased communication of information about unapproved uses of approved/cleared medical products could affect prescribing as well as medical product development and research into new uses of approved/cleared products?
c. How could firms' increased communication of information about unapproved uses of approved/cleared medical products affect patient incentives to enroll in clinical trials? Related to this, FDA is interested in information on how firms' increased communication of this information could impact their incentives to generate robust data to fully assess the risks and benefits of new uses and to apply for FDA marketing authorization for new uses of approved/cleared products.
d. Do the answers to the previous questions vary for different categories of medical products (
2. FDA is aware of changes happening in the health care system that are outside of FDA's role, which may provide an impetus for the development of high-quality data to fully assess the risks and benefits of new uses of medical products.
a. To what extent do changes occurring in the health care system that give payors and formulary committees more influence on prescribing decisions (including by denying, limiting, or endorsing coverage of unapproved uses of approved medical products) provide incentives for firms to generate the high-quality data needed to demonstrate safety and effectiveness for new uses?
b. To what extent do these changes affect (to preserve, enhance, or suppress) incentives for firms to seek FDA approval/clearance of new uses?
3. FDA recognizes that information about medical products, including information about unapproved uses of approved/cleared medical products, is now broadly available from a wide variety of sources (
4. Given the importance of the scientific integrity of the information that may be relied on in making decisions about the use of medical treatments, FDA is interested in input from stakeholders on the standards that should apply to unapproved use communications to minimize the potential of these communications to be misleading or otherwise cause harm. For example:
a. Given the wide range of quality of information potentially available to firms on unapproved uses of their approved/cleared medical products, what processes do firms use to evaluate whether such information is scientifically appropriate to communicate to health care professionals and other entities?
b. What criteria should the Agency consider in determining whether a study or analysis that is the basis of a firm's communication is scientifically appropriate to support the presentations or conclusions in the communication?
c. What do health care professionals generally understand about the quality and utility of different kinds or levels of scientific evidence related to unapproved uses? Can the same information be misleading to some audiences of health professionals and not others?
d. What information is most important to health care professionals and other entities in allowing them to judge the validity and utility of firms' communications about unapproved uses, including the level of uncertainty of the evidence, and why? Does the answer to this question differ depending on the recipient's purpose—
5. FDA is interested in input from stakeholders on factors that the Agency should consider in evaluating whether firms' communications about unapproved uses of approved/cleared medical products are truthful and non-misleading, including what information firms should disclose in these communications to help ensure audiences are not misled, and on general considerations related to the audience for these communications and on communication vehicles and techniques. For example:
a. What information should firms communicate to make audiences aware that the medical product is unapproved for the use discussed and to otherwise distinguish between the approved/cleared use(s) of the medical product and the unapproved use? How could the means of communication affect a recipient's ability to distinguish between unapproved and approved/cleared uses or otherwise impede the disclosure of necessary contextual information?
b. What factors are most relevant to determining whether a firms' communication about a medical product concerns an unapproved use? How do firms evaluate whether or not their communications concern unapproved uses and whether the messages communicated are accurate and non-misleading?
c. What other information should firms' disclose in these communications to help ensure audiences are not misled (
d. How can disclosures in firms' unapproved use communications be
e. To what extent is it appropriate for firms to communicate information about unapproved uses of their approved/cleared medical products to patient and consumer audiences? What disclosures and additional information would be needed to help ensure that a communication to lay audiences is truthful and non-misleading, given consumers' lack of medical training and expertise in critically evaluating this type of information?
6. Another important consideration in the changing health care environment is transparency, including the growing expectation that data from human studies will be made available for public review. If a firm bases a communication on data that is not publicly available, should information be provided publicly to ensure that the quality and integrity of the supportive scientific information can be adequately evaluated before any prescribing or use decision? If so, how should transparency of this information be monitored?
7. FDA is interested in public input on how the Agency should monitor firms' communications about unapproved uses of their medical products, and what actions FDA should take with respect to firms' communications that are determined to be false or misleading or that otherwise raise public health issues. For example, what kinds of surveillance and monitoring could be undertaken to measure and assess the public health impacts of unapproved use communications and by whom?
8. As discussed previously, the Agency is evaluating its regulations and policies governing firms' communications about unapproved uses of approved/cleared medical products and considering whether revisions are appropriate in order to provide greater legal certainty and clarity to regulated entities. As an initial step, in the
a. What additional changes, if any, should FDA consider in its regulations related to firms' communications about medical products, such as the regulations related to what is false or misleading, adequate directions for use, the definition of labeling, or other relevant provisions?
b. With respect to proposed alternatives to the current regulations, as well as other proposed alternatives suggested in litigation briefs and journal articles, what are the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches as they relate to the public health objectives that the FDA Authorities are designed to advance?
The FDA Conference Center at the White Oak location is a Federal facility with security procedures and limited seating. Attendance is free and early registration is recommended. Individuals who wish to attend must register on or before October 19, 2016, at
Individuals who wish to present at the public hearing must register as noted at
If you need special accommodations because of a disability, please send an email to
A link to the live Webcast of this public hearing will be available at
The Commissioner of Food and Drugs is announcing that the public hearing will be held in accordance with part 15 (21 CFR part 15). The hearing will be conducted by a presiding officer, accompanied by FDA senior management from the Office of the Commissioner and the relevant centers/offices.
Under § 15.30(f) (21 CFR 15.30(f)), the hearing is informal and the rules of evidence do not apply. Only the presiding officer and panel members may question any person during or at the conclusion of each presentation (§ 15.30(e)). Public hearings under part 15 are subject to FDA's policy and procedures for electronic media coverage of FDA's public administrative proceedings (21 CFR part 10, subpart C) (§ 10.203(a)). Under § 10.205, representatives of the electronic media may be permitted, subject to certain limitations, to videotape, film, or otherwise record FDA's public administrative proceedings, including presentations by participants. The hearing will be transcribed as stipulated in § 15.30(b) (see section V). To the extent that the conditions for the hearing as described in this document conflict with any provisions set out in part 15, this notice acts as a waiver of those provisions as specified in § 15.30(h).
Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it will be accessible at
Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes, HUD.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would amend HUD's lead-based paint regulations on reducing blood lead levels in children under age 6 who reside in federally-owned or -assisted pre-1978 housing and formally adopt the revised definition of “elevated blood lead levels” in children under the age of 6 in accordance with guidance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and establish more comprehensive testing and evaluation procedures for the housing where such children reside. In 2012, the CDC issued guidance revising its definition of elevated blood lead level in children under age 6 to be a blood lead level based on the distribution of blood lead levels in the national population. Since CDC's revision of its definition, HUD has applied the revised definition to funds awarded under its Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control grant program and its Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration grant program, and has updated its Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing to reflect this definition. CDC is continuing to consider, with respect to evolution of scientific and medical understanding, how best to identify childhood blood lead levels for which environmental interventions are recommended. Through this rule, HUD formally adopts through regulation the CDC's approach to the definition of “elevated blood lead levels” in children under the age of 6 and addresses the additional elements of the CDC guidance pertaining to assisted housing.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.
1.
2.
To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above.
Warren Friedman, Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 8236, Washington, DC 20410-3000, telephone number (202) 402-7698 or email your inquiry to
Childhood lead poisoning has long been recognized as causing reduced intelligence, low attention span, reading and learning disabilities, and has been linked to juvenile delinquency, behavioral problems, and many other adverse health effects. Current reviews by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including by its Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development have described these effects in detail.
In 2014, the CDC noted that, “Lead-based paint and lead contaminated dust are the most hazardous sources of lead for U.S. children,”
Even so, there are a considerable number of assisted housing units that have lead-based paint in which children under age 6 reside. As detailed in the regulatory impact assessment accompanying this notice, there are about 4.3 million housing units in the assistance programs covered by this rulemaking (1.1 million public housing, 1.2 million project-based rental assistance, and 2.0 million tenant-based rental assistance units), of which about 450,000 are estimated to have been built before 1978 and have children under age 6 residing (about 110, 130, and 210 thousand units, respectively). Of those units, about 57,000 units are estimated to have lead-based paint hazards (about 14, 16, and 27 thousand, respectively).
Health concerns have also been documented for adults exposed to high levels of lead from occupational exposures and to some extent from hobbies and other product or environmental sources, such as what might be associated with workers conducting lead hazard control activities; see,
HUD's Lead-Based Paint regulations designed to reduce lead exposure in federally-owned and federally-assisted housing (sometimes, for brevity, referred to here as “assisted housing”), referred to as the Lead Safe Housing Rule (LSHR), are found in title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 35, subparts B through R. The LSHR implements the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, which is Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-550, approved October 28, 1992), specifically, the LSHR implements sections 1012 and 1013 of Title X (42 U.S.C. 4822). One of the purposes of the LSHR is to ensure, as far as practicable, that federally-owned or federally-assisted housing that may have lead-based paint, which is most housing constructed prior to 1978 (called “target housing”)
As reflected in the LSHR and consistent with Title X, HUD's primary focus is on minimizing childhood lead exposures, rather than on waiting until children have elevated blood lead levels (see section I.B, below) to undertake actions to eliminate the lead-based paint hazards or the lead-based paint. HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes' (OLHCHH's) ongoing efforts in lead poisoning prevention—
CDC has recognized that the “HUD Lead Hazard Control Program . . . is the most easily identifiable and largest source of federal funding for lead-hazard remediation.”
HUD emphasizes that the scope of its authority under Title X is limited to lead-based paint hazard reduction in housing, and the scope of this rule is further limited to the reduction of those hazards in HUD-assisted housing. HUD is authorized by Title X to control lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards in certain HUD-assisted target housing. Lead-based paint hazards are lead-based paint and all residential lead-containing dusts and soils regardless of the source of the lead, which, due to their condition and location, would result in adverse human health effects. Title X required the EPA to promulgate standards for lead-based paint hazards, specifically, paint-lead hazards, dust-lead hazards, and soil-lead hazards, which it did through rulemaking.
Until 2012, children were identified by CDC as having a blood lead “level of concern” if testing found 10 or more micrograms per deciliter of lead in the blood (10 μg/dL). In 2012, CDC revised its guidance on childhood lead poisoning in response to recommendations by CDC's Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention (ACCLPP), which concluded that a growing number of scientific studies show that even low blood lead levels can cause lifelong health effects. CDC accepted the recommendation of the ACCLPP to eliminate its use of the term and concept of “blood lead level of concern.”
Consistent with the ACCLPP recommendation II that CDC link lead levels in its guidance to results from CDC's National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES),
HUD's currently codified LSHR, at 24 CFR 35.110 (the definition section), uses the term “environmental intervention blood lead level” (EIBLL). EIBLL is the blood lead level at which an evaluation for lead-based paint hazards and interim controls of such hazards identified (
Although HUD has not yet conformed the LSHR to reflect the CDC's 2012 revised approach for establishing the definition of EBLL, HUD's
ACCLPP recommendation X was that CDC adopt prevention strategies to reduce environmental lead exposures in soil, dust, paint, and water before children are exposed. As part of its response, CDC noted that it would continue to emphasize the importance of environmental assessment and mitigation of lead hazards before children are exposed (CDC Response to ACCLPP recommendation X).
ACCLPP recommendation XI was that, “If lead hazards trigger a response in any unit in a multi-family housing complex, the same response action should be applied to all similar untested units in the housing complex, unless a risk assessment demonstrates that no lead hazards are present in the other units.” In response, CDC concurred with the evidence suggesting that a building that houses one child with lead poisoning is an indication that other children in that building are likely at risk (CDC Response to ACCLPP recommendation XI).
HUD has been implementing primary prevention—the strategy of emphasizing preventing exposure rather than responding after the exposure has taken place
Regarding the CDC Response to ACCLPP recommendation II, on using the reference range value, as noted above, HUD issued the second edition of its
Regarding the CDC Response to ACCLPP recommendation III, on primary prevention, one of the purposes of the LSHR, as noted above, is to ensure, as far as practicable, that federally-owned or federally-assisted target housing does not have lead-based paint hazards. Assisted target housing covered by the rule is assessed for hazards before the assisted occupants move in; controls before occupancy are required when hazards are identified; when the assistance is ongoing, ongoing lead-based paint maintenance is required, periodic re-evaluations for the presence of lead hazards are conducted, and hazards are controlled, and occupants are notified of the results—all of these actions are independent of, and precede, children's blood lead levels increasing as a result of lead-based paint hazards in their housing.
Regarding the CDC Response to ACCLPP recommendation VI, that clinicians report EBLL cases to local and state health and/or housing departments, the LSHR includes, in the subparts pertaining to ongoing assistance for target housing, the requirement that the owner (or other “designated party” responsible for the assistance under the rule) promptly report the name and address of a child identified as having an EIBLL to the public health department within 5 business days of being so notified by any other medical health care professional.
Regarding the CDC Response to ACCLPP recommendation VII, HUD has long been engaged in educating families, service providers, advocates, and public officials on primary prevention of lead exposure in homes, through outreach campaigns, development, publication and distribution of brochures, flyers, manuals, and guidance documents, training of housing sector stakeholders, and supporting the EPA's National Lead Information Center, which provides the general public and professionals with information about lead, lead hazards, and their prevention.
Regarding the CDC Response to ACCLPP recommendation VIII, HUD has long facilitated data-sharing between health and housing agencies, promoted preventive lead-safe housing standards for target housing, identifying financing for lead hazard remediation, and provided families with the information needed to protect their children from hazards in the home. For example, as far back as 1990, in its Interim Guidelines on addressing lead hazards in public and Indian housing, HUD encouraged public housing agencies to collaborate with health departments on,
Regarding the CDC Response to ACCLPP recommendation X, which emphasizes the importance of environmental assessments to identify and mitigate lead hazards as a primary prevention technique, as noted above, the LSHR requires this of all of the assisted housing covered by the rule.
Regarding several additional ACCLPP recommendations, HUD has been implementing the CDC response since the issuance of the CDC Response.
Regarding the recommendation XIII, specifically, the element of the recommendation that has a housing connection, on CDC improving the use of data from screening programs, HUD and CDC collaborated on matching addresses of HUD-assisted residents with national health survey data to develop a method for improving the targeting of lead hazard control efforts and resources.
Although HUD is already applying the CDC's 2012 revised definition of EBLL in its lead hazard control NOFAs and in its
Specifically, HUD is proposing to revise the LSHR regarding target housing covered by the five subparts of the LSHR that are related to children under age 6 exposed to lead in housing where the Federal Government maintains a continuing financial or ownership relationship. HUD proposes to implement the recommendations of the CDC, within the scope of HUD's authority, and in consideration of available federal resources. The five subparts currently use the EIBLL threshold for undertaking an environmental response.
HUD is proposing to revise these subparts to use the CDC's approach for determining when a child's blood lead level triggers the environmental response. The following types of federal housing assistance are covered in 24 CFR part 35 subparts for which an environmental intervention may be required:
Provisions proposed to be revised within the individual subparts are described below.
In regard to housing for which the current rule requires response to EIBLL cases and this proposed rule would require response to EBL cases, the following types of hazard evaluation and reduction activities are required, whether or not a child with an EIBLL resides or is expected to reside in a unit covered by the LSHR:
Lead-based paint inspection: Subparts I and L. This is a surface-by-surface investigation to determine the presence (including the location) of lead-based paint and providing a report explaining the results of the investigation.
Hazard Evaluation:
• Risk Assessment: Subparts D, H (assistance over $5,000 per unit per year), and I. Lead risk assessments involve visual assessment for deteriorated paint, testing of deteriorated paint to determine if it is lead-based paint (and thus, a lead-based paint hazard because of the deterioration), dust wipe sampling of window sills and floors, and sampling of bare soil.
• Visual assessment for deteriorated paint: Subparts H (assistance up to $5,000 per unit per year), M
• Reevaluation: Subparts D, H (assistance over $5,000 per unit per year), I and L. Reevaluations involve a visual assessment of painted surfaces and limited dust and soil sampling conducted periodically following lead-based paint hazard reduction where lead-based paint is still present.
• Periodic inspection for deteriorated paint: Subpart M: These periodic inspections are conducted as part of the inspection of the assisted housing.
Hazard Reduction:
• Abatement of LBP hazards: L (during comprehensive modernization). Abatement is set of measures designed to permanently (for an expected design life of at least 20 years) eliminate lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards Abatement includes: Removing lead-based paint and dust-lead hazards, permanently enclosing or encapsulating lead-based paint, replacing components or fixtures painted with lead-based paint, and removing permanently covering soil-lead hazards; along with all the preparation, cleanup, disposal, and post-abatement reoccupancy clearance testing activities associated with those measures.
Interim controls of LBP hazards: Subparts D, I, and L (pending abatement during comprehensive modernization). Interim controls are measures designed to reduce temporarily human exposure or likely exposure to lead-based paint hazards. They include, but are not limited to, repairs, painting, temporary containment, specialized cleaning, clearance for tenant reoccupancy after projects that involve paint disturbance larger than the
Paint stabilization: Subparts H (assistance up to $5,000 per unit per year), M. Paint stabilization involves repairing any physical defect in the substrate of a painted surface that is
Lead hazard evaluation and control activities in HUD-assisted and HUD-owned housing are subject to the requirements of the applicable civil rights laws, including the Fair Housing Act as amended (for example, by the Fair Housing Amendments Act), and its prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability or familial status (including the presence of a child under age of 18, or of a pregnant woman), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex), and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability). These laws, and their associated HUD regulations
In updating the LSHR to reflect the CDC's approach to defining EBL, within the scope of HUD's authority, HUD is proposing to shift its threshold for environmental intervention from the environmental intervention blood lead level (EIBLL), as described above, to the elevated blood lead level (EBLL) that is identified in CDC's guidance for recommending a childhood blood lead level such that an environmental intervention should be conducted, at any given point in time. In 2012, CDC's guidance used the reference range value, which had the numerical value of 5 μg/dL; HUD would continue to rely on CDC's guidance, whether CDC's approach continued to use the reference range value or used another criterion. In addition, this rule proposes to revise the type of hazard control undertaken when lead-based paint or other hazards are identified and, in the case of housing projects with more than one unit, address lead-based paint hazards in those other units in which children under age 6 reside.
The approach to implementing the regulatory protocol under this proposed rulemaking is founded on the currently codified LSHR, the CDC guidance on blood lead reference levels, the HUD
In broad terms, HUD's proposed protocol for responding to a case of a child under age 6 with an EBLL would include the “designated party” undertaking certain actions. The designated party is the owner or other entity (
The protocol would include the designated party:
• Conducting an environmental investigation
• Conducting interim control
• Controlling other housing-related sources of lead exposure in the building, such as lead-contaminated debris.
• Being encouraged to gain the collaboration of the occupants in addressing the presence and use of sources of lead exposure that are not housing-related. Non-housing items (such as lead-containing cosmetics, pottery, folk remedies,
The proposed procedure for conducting an environmental investigation, including procedures for investigating sources of lead exposure other than lead-based paint hazards, as presently found is found in Chapter 16 of the HUD
• Reviewing the findings of any previous lead-based paint inspection, risk assessment, environmental investigation, or reevaluation for the property.
• Conducting a comprehensive interview of the family of the child, based on the CDC EBLL environmental investigation checklist or HUD EBLL questionnaire (both are in the chapter), or a comparable questionnaire (such as one from the public health department).
• Conducting a risk assessment.
• Augmenting the risk assessment, in consultation with the public health department managing the child's EBLL case, if that public health department chooses to cooperate with the designated party, to determine what, if any, other possible sources of exposure should be investigated, including, but not limited to:
○ Drinking water.
○ Glazed pottery or tableware that may contain lead glazes.
○ Work clothes or vehicle that may have been contaminated from a parent's or guardian's work place.
○ Imported cosmetics, hobbies, folk remedies, and candies. (Hobby contamination involving lead (
• Providing to the HUD field office documentation that the designated party has conducted the activities above, within 10 business days of the deadline for each activity. In accordance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, which encourages electronic submission of information as a substitute for paper,
The designated party or public health department may have conducted an environmental investigation of the index unit and common areas servicing it between the dates the child's blood was last sampled and the designated party received the EBLL notification. If so, the designated party would not need to conduct another environmental investigation. Similarly, if the designated party had conducted a risk assessment of the index unit and common areas servicing the unit during that period, it would not need to conduct another risk assessment, it would need to conduct only the additional elements of an environmental investigation.
A key part of the response to the case of a child with an elevated blood lead level is the environmental investigation of the unit in which the child resided,
• Providing to the HUD field office
• If the designated party does not provide such documentation of compliance to date, conducting a risk assessment of the non-compliant other units within the building or project covered by the LSHR and the common areas that service them, and conducting interim controls of lead-based paint hazards identified, or in the case of tenant-based rental assisted units and project-based rental assisted units receiving under $5,000 per unit per year or being single family housing, conducting visual assessment and stabilization of deteriorated paint,
As noted above in regard to the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, the designated party may submit the documentation of compliance with the LSHR regarding the affected units electronically.
Consistent with CDC's response to the ACCLPP recommendations, chapter 16 of the HUD
• Lead-based paint hazards (
• Other housing-related sources of lead exposure that are outside of the scope of lead risk assessments. The procedure for environmental investigations, as provided in chapter 16 of the Guidelines, is summarized above.
HUD notes that reevaluation is not part of the response to an EBLL. Reevaluations (or, for tenant-based rental assistance, periodic housing quality standard inspections) are already part of the regular ongoing lead-based paint management required in the subparts this proposed rule would amend, so they are not part of this amendment.
HUD's statutory authority to require controls of lead exposure sources, in contrast to recommending control of them, is limited to housing hazards under the United States Housing Act of 1937 (1937 Act) 42 U.S.C. 1437
As seen in numerous HUD regulations from its various program offices,
As described below, across the different subparts of the LSHR, there are some differences in terminology, scoping, and exceptions, based on the specifics of the housing assistance.
HUD is proposing that, when a child under age 6 residing in target housing where the Federal government maintains a continuing financial or ownership relationship is reported to have an EBLL, the designated party must complete an environmental investigation of the index unit, and of common areas servicing the index unit, within 15 calendar days of the designated party being notified.
As noted above, several types of federal housing assistance, covered by 24 CFR part 35 subparts D, H, I, L, and M, identified above, have provisions that address lead safety in regard to children under age 6. The subparts apply when the Federal government maintains a continuing financial or ownership relationship to the target housing (vs. the short-term relationship in most rehabilitation projects, which ends when the construction work is completed, if there is no other long-term assistance relationship).
Similarly to the process under the currently codified rule, if the notification of an EBLL case is received from a person who is not a medical health care provider, the requirement to conduct an environmental investigation would be conditioned on verification of the case information, including the child's blood lead level information with the public health department or other medical health care provider. However, the threshold for such verification would be changed from EIBLL to EBLL as defined under this proposal.
Under the currently codified rule, the blood lead threshold for conducting the environmental investigation is fixed. Under this proposed rule, the threshold for the EBLL would change when CDC updates its guidance for a childhood blood lead level such that an environmental intervention should be conducted. As of 2012, this was the reference range level for children under age 6 (
If the proposed rule is adopted, after CDC publishes an update to the EBL guidance, HUD would issue a notice on the applicability of that updated threshold to the LSHR going forward after a preparatory transition period. HUD's notice would, in order to provide regulatory and programmatic clarity, and to avoid unnecessary retroactive program changes, specify that the change would be prospective, not retroactive. Thus, the status of housing of children with blood lead levels based on measurements taken before the transition period ends that are in the range between the earlier and newer reference range values would not be affected by the change. (For example, if the earlier reference range value was 5.0 μg/dL, and a 4-year old child's blood lead level measured before the end of the transition period were 3.7 μg/dL, the child's dwelling unit would not need to be subject to an environmental investigation, even if the updated EBL value published after the child's blood were tested is 3.7 μg/dL or less. If the child continues to reside in federally-owned or -assisted housing covered by the environmental intervention requirement, and the child's blood, as retested after the transition period has ended is at or above the updated EBL value (in this example, at or above 3.7 μg/dL), the environmental intervention would then be required.)
Similarly, the blood lead level that would prompt notification to the public health department would be an EBLL rather than an EIBLL.
In order that HUD be able to promptly monitor implementation of the evaluation and hazard control procedures when an EBLL case has occurred in HUD-assisted or HUD-owned target housing, HUD is proposing that the designated party notify within 5 business days of being notified of the EBLL case by a public health department or any other medical health care professional both the HUD field office (as the currently codified rule requires for public housing, under § 35.1130(e)) and HUD's OLHCHH, which has been delegated authority for oversight of the Lead Safe Housing Rule.
The 15-day period for conducting environmental investigation would be the same period as the current LSHR requires in EIBLL cases.
If the investigation identified lead-based paint hazards in these areas, the designated party (or the owner, as applicable) would be required to conduct interim controls of the hazards within 30 calendar days of receiving the report of the investigation, as in the current rule.
Similarly, as part of this rulemaking, HUD encourages the designated party to address sources of lead exposure other than lead-based paint hazards. If those sources are housing-related,
Regarding these sources, HUD encourages the designated party to gain the cooperation of the occupants in addressing the presence and use of non-housing-related sources of lead exposures. Similarly, some of these sources may be ambient, such as hazardous waste facility siting, or industrial emissions, regarding which, by this rulemaking, HUD is indicating that it is important that the designated party inform or even engage with local, state, and/or federal public health and/or environmental officials in addressing the problem.
Hazard reduction would be considered complete when either:
• Clearance of the unit and common areas servicing the unit is achieved and the clearance report from the risk assessor states that the control measures have been completed; or
• The public health department certifies that the lead-based paint hazard reduction and the control of other
The designated party may have, between the date the child's blood was last sampled and when the designated party received the notification, conducted hazard reduction of the unit and common areas servicing the unit as described above, including passing clearance. If so, it need not redo the hazard reduction.
ACCLPP's recommendation XI was that, “If lead hazards trigger a response in any unit in a multi-family housing project, the same response action should be applied to all similar untested units in the housing project, unless a risk assessment demonstrates that no lead hazards are present in the other units.”
HUD is proposing that if, (a) the dwelling unit in which the child under age 6 resided when she or he was reported as having an EBLL,
If index unit has any lead-based paint hazards, HUD is proposing that the types of action required depend on whether a child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside in one or more other assisted units in the building or project, and the documented degree of compliance with the LSHR by the designated party in regard to the residential property, as reviewed by HUD if the designated party wishes to use its performance record as demonstrating that no lead-based paint hazards are likely to be present in other units. This prioritization is intended to focus limited federal resources on the situations of the highest risk to children under age 6 in other assisted units in the building or project where exposure to lead hazards may have occurred. HUD has, of course, no jurisdiction under sections 1012 or 1013 of Title X over unassisted units, but it encourages the use of the protocol below in unassisted units, even if it cannot require its application to those units. Similarly, regarding lead safety in situations not covered by the Rule, HUD encourages housing owners (occupant owners and landlords), housing maintenance, management, and renovation firms, and others to be aware of its hazards, and to work safely with lead-containing building materials, for the protection of the health of occupants, visitors and workers, and their families.
In general, when the index unit has been found to have lead-based paint hazards, and a child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside in one or more other assisted units in the building or project, HUD is proposing certain actions be undertaken, based on the type of assistance. Specifically, the designated party would be required to (with exceptions as noted below):
• Conduct a risk assessment of those other units in public housing, project-based rental assisted multifamily properties receiving $5,000 or more per unit per year in HUD assistance, or HUD-owned and mortgagee-in-possession multifamily properties with unit selection as described in the statistically valid random sampling protocol in Chapter 7, Section V, Inspections in Multi-family Housing, of the HUD Guidelines (as discussed below), or sample all of those other units.
• Conduct a visual assessment for deteriorated paint in those other units in tenant-based rental assisted units, project-based rental assisted properties receiving under $5,000 per unit per year in HUD assistance, or project-based rental assisted single family housing in the same project receiving HUD assistance. Again, when there are a sufficient number of those other units, the random sampling protocol in Chapter 7, Section V, of the HUD Guidelines may be used (as discussed below) for unit selection.
The occupancy of the other assisted units in the building or project would be examined to determine in which of them, if any, children under age 6 resided or were expected to reside as of the date when, regarding the index unit and common areas servicing that unit:
• If lead-based paint hazards were identified, the date the lead hazard control work passed clearance, that is, the unit (and/or common area) where the work was done is completed, and the residents can move into their unit (and/or pass through the common area) based on a successful visual inspection for completion of the work and cleanliness is passed and, for work that would disturb painted surfaces that total more than a small (“de minimis”) amount (defined for the LSHR in 24 CFR 35.1350(d)), passing a residual dust-lead level test; or
• If no lead-based paint hazards were identified, the date the environmental investigation in regard to the child in the index unit was completed.
The “expected to reside” wording is used because it is in the statutory and regulatory definitions of target housing as the exception to the exemption of housing for persons with disabilities or the elderly from target housing. Thus, housing for persons with disabilities or the elderly in which a child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside is covered by the scope of the LSHR.
“
It is important to note that a “dwelling unit reserved for the elderly,” or a “dwelling unit . . . designated exclusively for persons with disabilities” differs from a unit's happening to be occupied by the elderly or by persons with disabilities. A child may be “expected to reside” in family housing (
When the designated party has this actual knowledge about another assisted unit in the building or project, that unit would be included among those that are assessed (unless the designated party had documented to HUD's satisfaction, compliance with the LSHR demonstrating that no lead-based paint hazards were likely to be present in other units) and, if lead-based paint hazards or deteriorated paint (as applicable) are identified, treated.
The date clearance has passed is used in establishing the deadline for conducting the evaluation of the other units and the control of hazards identified, so that the designated party will focus its initial efforts on the index unit and its associated common areas, in order to expedite evaluating and, if necessary, controlling lead-based paint hazards there.
If a family with a child under age 6 moves in to a unit formerly designated as one in which no children under age 6 were residing or expected to reside, a risk assessment or visual assessment (as applicable, based on the type of assistance) must be conducted in accordance with the current rule. If lead-based paint hazards or deteriorated paint (as applicable) are found, then, under the current rule, lead hazard control will be conducted to protect the child's health.
If the index unit has been found to have lead-based paint hazards, it is possible that the designated party may not have met the proposed certain performance requirements under the LSHR. Specifically, under the LSHR, the designated party is responsible for conducting and documenting current evaluation, notifications, and disclosure, and, depending on the type of assistance, may be responsible for conducting and documenting ongoing lead-based paint maintenance and management (see Sections II.A.3 and 4, respectively, below).
If the designated party has not met the applicable performance requirements above, and a child under age 6 with an EBLL resides in a unit covered by the LSHR that has lead-based paint hazards, HUD is proposing that the designated party conduct a risk assessment (or visual assessment, as applicable) in other dwelling units covered by the LSHR in which children under age 6 reside or are expected to reside, and the common areas servicing those units. If lead-based paint hazards or deteriorated paint, as applicable, are found in those other units, then interim controls or paint stabilization, as applicable must be conducted, and clearance passed.
If the designated party has met the applicable performance requirements above, and a child under age 6 with an EBLL resides in a unit covered by the LSHR, the designated party is encouraged by HUD to conduct a risk assessment (or visual assessment, as applicable) in other dwelling units covered by the LSHR, although it would not be required to do so. When the set of units with children under age 6 has been identified, if a risk assessment is to be conducted, the designated party (in typical practice, through its risk assessment staff or contractor) would select either all of these units (and the common areas that service them) to assess, or, if the number of units is large enough (over 20, in pre-1960 housing, and over 10 in 1960-1977 housing), a random sample of units (and of the common areas that service them) in accordance with the HUD
When the set of units with children under age 6 has been identified, if visual assessment is to be conducted, the designated party (in typical practice, through its risk assessment staff or contractor) would select all of these units (and the common areas that service them) to assess. The visual assessment procedure is much faster than the risk assessment procedure, with the trade-off that it provides less information. Accordingly, conducting a random sample of units and of common areas is not appropriate in this context of a child under age 6 with an EBLL in the building or project.
However, as under the current LSHR, if the designated party were to choose not to evaluate the other units covered by the LSHR for lead-based paint hazards (or deteriorated paint, as applicable), the designated party would have to presume that lead-based paint hazards are present in these other units and common areas. This is allowable because the current LSHR provides, in §§ 35.120(a) and (b), for risk assessments not to be conducted if “the designated party . . . presume[s] that lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards or both are present throughout the residential property,” and use standard treatments on the painted building components and horizontal surfaces, and HUD is continuing to allow the designated party to use this option. A designated party may, for example, have staff or contracts in place to control presumed lead-based paint hazards, if it does not wish to delay undertaking the control activities.
For target housing units receiving tenant-based rental assistance in which children under age 6 reside (which are covered by LSHR subpart M), the legislative history of Title X, as described in the preamble to the LSHR (64 FR 50139,
HUD is proposing that if a risk assessment or a visual assessment (as applicable) finds lead-based paint hazards or deteriorated paint (as applicable), or if these hazards or deterioration are presumed to exist in the other dwelling units with children under age 6 residing or expected to reside and the common areas servicing those units, then the approach to controlling them should be the same as for the index unit and common areas servicing the index unit. For all subparts covered by this rulemaking the control approach would be interim controls, except for subpart M on tenant-based rental assistance, and a portion of subpart H on project-based rental assistance (to units receiving under $5,000 per unit per year or being single family housing) for which the approach is paint stabilization. For both, interim controls and paint stabilization, the control measure would be followed by clearance if the amount of deteriorated
As in the current rule, the designated party would be required to implement lead hazard control measures promptly, with the period specified in the applicable subpart of the rule. In housing covered by the LSHR, for index units, the period for interim controls would be 30 calendar days of receiving the report of the investigation. For other units covered by the LSHR with children under age 6 residing or expected to reside, the period would be 30 calendar days for paint stabilization (as in the current rule at §§ 35.720(a)(2) and 35.1215(b)), and a schedule based on the main threshold for multifamily unit sampling in the HUD Guidelines' chapter 7 as a means of characterizing a large hazard control project:
See the description of the evaluation and lead-based paint hazard control approach in Section II.A.1, above, along with the approach to addressing sources of lead exposure other than lead-based paint hazards.
The LSHR requires, in the applicable subparts of title 24 CFR part 35, that evaluations be conducted for lead-based paint, deteriorated paint, and/or lead-based paint hazards,
This proposed rule would retain the requirement of notification of evaluations and hazard reduction activities in accordance with § 35.125, Notice of evaluation and hazard reduction activities, of the LSHR. That section requires notification within 15 calendar days of when the designated party receives the evaluation report or the hazard reduction activities have been completed, to each occupied dwelling unit affected by the evaluation, presumption, or hazard reduction activity or serviced by common areas in which it took place.
The implementing provisions in other parts of title 24 CFR incorporate part 35 by reference, including both the LSHR, in subparts B-R, and the Lead Disclosure Rule, in subpart A. Disclosure is required in addition to notification. Note that any lead-based paint hazards identified by a risk assessment or environmental investigation, and the results of any lead hazard control work, must, under the Lead Disclosure Rule, be disclosed to prospective tenants and buyers, and to current tenants before lease renewal. See HUD's Lead Disclosure Rule Web site at
HUD is proposing that, if the designated party has not complied with these requirements in the 12 months ending on the date the owner received the environmental investigation report, or if it has not provided the HUD field office documentation demonstrating compliance, the designated party must conduct the evaluation and, if applicable, hazard reduction requirements in the other assisted dwelling units with children under age 6 and common areas serving them, as described in Section II.A.2, above. Note that, under rules pertaining to the type of assistance, HUD may consider taking remedial action under the assistance contract or agreement as a result of the noncompliance.
Implementation of ongoing lead-based paint management and maintenance is important in ensuring that, between evaluations, lead-based paint is maintained properly (such as during day-to-day occupancy and, in particular, renovation, repair and painting (RRP) work) and managed properly (such as during rehabilitation and modernization activities) so that lead-based paint hazards are unlikely to occur. Each of the five LSHR subparts covering HUD-assisted housing for which the current rule has an EIBLL requirement also requires ongoing lead-based paint maintenance. Similarly, when rehabilitation, under subpart J, Rehabilitation, is conducted in such housing, appropriate lead hazard control is required, as is the use of properly certified firms and workers in these activities. Specifically, the LSHR requires compliance with Federal laws and authorities for all lead-based paint activities (24 CFR 35.145). This includes the Environmental Protection Agency's lead-based paint regulations at 40 CFR part 745, such as its RRP Rule.
The designated party may have complied with the evaluation, notification and disclosure requirements described in Section II.A.3, above, but not properly maintained and managed lead-based paint, lead in dust, and lead in soil, or not documented compliance. (Proper management in this context includes using lead-certified firms and workers in maintenance and management activities, and achieving
HUD is proposing a delayed effective date for these regulations that would be one or more months after the date of publication of the final rule in the
The argument in favor of a 1 month delayed effective date is based on Title X (sections 1012 and 1013) requiring the evaluation and reduction of lead-based paint hazards in housing receiving Federal assistance and residential property owned by the Federal government. Under one line of argumentation, any delay beyond the mandatory 30 day delayed effective date (42 U.S.C. 3535(o)(3)) in implementing requirements based on the guidance of the federal public health agency would pose an undue risk to the health of children. The argument for a longer delayed effective date is that program administrators at all levels of government, as well as property owners and contractors performing lead-based paint activities, would not have adequate education and training time to implement the new criterion and the associated requirements and procedures required under the proposed regulation.
Further, the Department recognizes that HUD clients conducting ongoing program activities will need time to incorporate the revised requirements for responding to cases of children with elevated blood lead levels into their programs. As a result, HUD is proposing to delay the effective date of the final rule for 6 months after publication of the final rule as a way to allow all parties—lead-based paint professionals, housing agencies, state and local government agencies, and private property owners—time to prepare for proper implementation of the revised requirements. The Department shares the concern of the public health community that delays in implementing these requirements may have young children with EBLLs living in certain HUD-assisted housing where no environmental intervention has taken place spend a longer amount of time in that housing than the time it takes to control the lead-based hazard. At the same time, however, it would be impractical for HUD to establish a 30 day delayed effective date knowing that the organizational infrastructure necessary to carry it out would not be fully in place.
Because most of the LSHR went into effect 12 months after its publication,
HUD welcomes comments on the length of the proposed delayed effective date for this rule.
1.
a.
As discussed in Section I, above, in 2013, CDC revised its guidance to provide an operational definition of EBLL based on data from NHANES, and committed to update that definition every four years. Accordingly, HUD is proposing to add a definition of EBLL so that the term can be used in the program subparts instead of writing out the full wording of the definition in each applicable section.
The entity mentioned in the definition is the Department of Health and Human Services, rather than CDC, in order to accommodate the possibility that that Department could choose to have another organizational unit than CDC announce the updated EBL value, without HUD having to amend this Rule to reflect that updated value.
HUD is proposing to add a definition that elevated blood lead level means a confirmed concentration of lead in whole blood of a child under age 6 equal to or greater than the concentration in the most recent guidance published by the Department of Health and Human Services on recommending that an environmental intervention be conducted.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
2.
This subpart currently requires specific actions in response to a child with an environmental intervention blood lead level in § 35.325. In addition to revising this section to refer to an elevated blood lead level, HUD proposes that the change in evaluation method be updated to reflect the change from risk assessment to environmental investigation.
HUD is proposing that children under age 6 in this housing be covered when they live in other units in the building or project. Specifically, if the environmental investigation of the index unit identifies any lead-based paint hazards, the owner would generally, as described below, conduct a risk assessment for other assisted dwelling units in which a child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside on the date interim controls are complete, and for the common areas serving those units. Risk assessments would be conducted within 30 calendar days after receipt of the environmental investigation report on the index unit if there are 20 or fewer such units, or 60 calendar days for risk assessments if there are more than 20 such units. If the risk assessment were to identify lead-based paint hazards, the owner would have to control the hazards in those units and common areas. The control work would have to be done within 30 calendar days, or within 90 calendar days if more than 20 units have lead-based paint hazards such that the control work would disturb painted surfaces that total more than the de minimis threshold of § 35.1350(d), as discussed in Section I.A.2, above. These requirements for other units would not apply if either the owner conducted a risk assessment and conducted interim controls of identified lead-based paint hazards between the date the child's blood was last sampled and the date the owner received the notification of the elevated blood lead level; or if the owner has documentation of compliance with evaluation, notification, lead disclosure, ongoing lead-based paint maintenance, and lead-based paint management requirements under this part throughout the 12 months preceding the date the owner received the environmental investigation report, Federal agencies other than HUD would be responsible for updating their policies under this subpart and implementing them.
3.
This subpart covers several categories of project-based assistance programs. Section 35.715 covers project-based assistance to multifamily properties receiving more than $5,000 per unit per year, and includes a paragraph (d) on properties that have not yet had a risk assessment conducted in accordance with paragraph (a). Section 35.720 covers multifamily properties receiving up to $5,000 per unit per year, and single family properties. Both sections incorporate the same § 35.730, about a child with an environmental intervention blood lead level, by reference. HUD is proposing that § 35.730, be revised to reflect the protocol for addressing elevated blood level cases as described above.
Regarding other dwelling units in the property covered by this subpart other than the index unit, HUD is proposing that, if the environmental investigation report on the index unit identifies lead-based paint hazards, then, for units in which a child under age 6 resides:
• Evaluation (risk assessment (per § 35.715(a)) or visual assessment (per § 35.720(a)(1)), as applicable) would be conducted within 30 calendar days after receipt of the environmental investigation report on the index unit for visual assessments, 30 calendar days for risk assessments if there are 20 or fewer such units, or 60 calendar days for risk assessments if there are more than 20 such units. These periods provide promptness while recognizing that more than one unit may have to be assessed, and the limited availability of certified risk assessors in some jurisdictions, so that the 15-day period used in § 35.730(a) for conducting an evaluation on that one, index, unit may not be sufficient for the owner to arrange for
• Hazard control work be completed in these other units on a schedule described above: within 30 calendar days, or within 90 calendar days if more than 20 units have lead-based paint hazards such that the control work would disturb painted surfaces that total more than the de minimis threshold of § 35.1350(d). HUD encourages owners to conduct hazard control work expeditiously, especially if there are few other units in which work is to be done.
As noted above, to enable prompt HUD monitoring of implementation of the evaluation and hazard control procedures under this subpart when an EBLL case has occurred, HUD is proposing that the designated party notify the HUD field office and HUD's OLHCHH within 5 business days of being so notified by the public health department or medical health care professional.
It should be noted that CDC used the terms “multi-family housing” and “housing complex” in its Response to ACCLPP recommendation XI to refer to a group of buildings, apartments, etc., that are located near each other and used for a particular purpose, as “complex” is commonly defined in the building context. HUD regulations and program documents use several terms to refer to such a similar group of residential buildings, including “complex,” “buildings,” “apartments,” and “project.” For the sake of uniformity, and to provide clarity for HUD stakeholders, the HUD synonym “project” is used in this and other subparts of the LSHR outside of quotations from CDC that use “complex.”
HUD proposes to make a technical correction to § 35.715, to redesignate paragraph (d)(4), on blood lead level response, which requires the response until a risk assessment of a property is conducted, but does not require a blood lead level response after the risk assessment is done, as paragraph (e). The current paragraph numbering inadvertently makes the requirement for the higher level of assistance in this section less stringent than the requirement for the lower level of assistance covered by § 35.720. As a result of correcting this inconsistency, the redesignation would have the requirement apply to multifamily properties receiving more than $5,000 per unit, whether before or after the risk assessment has been conducted.
4.
This subpart currently requires specific actions in response to a child with an environmental intervention blood lead level in § 35.830; the requirements are generally the same with respect to risk assessment, verification, hazard reduction, and reporting requirement as those for housing receiving project-based rental assistance in § 35.730, discussed in Section II.C.3. The difference is that, because HUD is the owner of these properties covered by § 35.830, the term “HUD” is used here where the wording “the owner” is used in § 35.730.
HUD is proposing that § 35.830 be revised to reflect the protocol for addressing EBLL cases as described above, with the difference that, because HUD is the owner of these properties, for specificity, “HUD” would be used in § 35.830 rather than the phrase “the owner” that would be used in § 35.730.
As noted above, to enable prompt HUD OLHCHH monitoring of implementation of the evaluation and hazard control procedures under this subpart when an EBLL case has occurred, HUD is proposing that the HUD office managing the property notify the HUD field office and the OLHCHH within 5 business days of being so notified by the public health department or medical health care professional.
5.
This subpart currently requires specific actions in response to a child with an environmental intervention blood lead level in § 35.1130, which are generally the same as those for housing receiving project-based rental assistance in § 35.730 of subpart H, discussed in Section II.C.3, with a difference in terminology and some additional requirements.
Regarding the terminology, because the public housing agency (PHA) carries out the lead-based paint functions of owner of the properties covered by § 35.1130, the term “PHA” is used where the term “owner” is used in § 35.730. Similarly, “public housing development” is used in this section, where “dwelling unit to which this subpart applies” is used in § 35.730.
HUD is proposing that § 35.1130(e) require that PHAs report each confirmed (previously labelled “known,” and revised to follow CDC terminology more closely) case of a child with an EBLL to the HUD field office; in the currently codified rule such reporting is required for EIBLL cases. As noted above, to enable prompt HUD monitoring of implementation of the evaluation and hazard control procedures under this subpart when an EBLL case has occurred, HUD is proposing that the designated party also notify the OLHCHH within 5 business days of being so notified by the public health department or medical health care professional of an EBLL case.
The case of the PHA not completing the hazard reduction required by § 35.1130, which was not addressed in the original rule, is addressed here by noting the linkage between the LSHR and the Uniform Physical Condition Standards (UPCS) at § 5.703, which are incorporated by reference into the public housing regulations at 24 CFR part 965. In particular, if the hazard reduction is not completed, the dwelling unit is not free of lead-based paint hazards, so it is in violation of § 5.703(f), which among other things, requires that the housing be free of lead-based paint hazards. The UPCS are incorporated by reference into the public housing physical condition standards at § 965.601. The LSHR, including its subpart L, Public Housing, is also incorporated by reference into the public housing standards at § 965.701.
Most significantly, current § 35.1130(f) establishes requirements for PHAs regarding other units in the building with the index unit if the risk assessment of the index unit and common areas servicing the index unit identifies lead-based paint hazards but previous evaluations of the building did not identify lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards. In such a case, the PHA is required to conduct a risk assessment of other units covered by the LSHR in the building, and interim controls of identified hazards.
HUD is proposing that, generally, if previous evaluations of the building did identify lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards, and the risk assessment
HUD is proposing that § 35.1130 be revised to refer to an elevated blood lead level, and that the section be updated to reflect the protocol for addressing EBLL cases as described above, with the differences that, because the PHA is the owner of these properties, for specificity, “PHA” would be used in § 35.1130 rather than the phrase “the owner” that would be used in § 35.730.
HUD is proposing to make a technical correction to § 35.1130(f). The first sentence (which HUD is proposing to redesignate as § 35.1130(f)(1)) discusses the requirement for the PHA to conduct interim controls of identified hazards in accordance with the schedule provided in, according to the currently codified rule, § 35.1120(c). The pertinent schedule in § 35.1120 is, however, in paragraph (b), not paragraph (c), so HUD proposes to correct the citation.
6.
This subpart currently requires specific actions in response to a child with an environmental intervention blood lead level in § 35.1225, Child with an environmental intervention blood lead level; similar to those for housing receiving project-based rental assistance in § 35.730 of subpart H, discussed in Section II.C.3, with a difference in terminology and some variations in requirements.
Regarding the terminology, because of the variety of HUD assistance programs covered by this subpart (see § 35.1200(a)), the generic term “designated party” is used where the term “owner” is used in § 35.730 for project-based assisted housing.
As noted above, to enable prompt HUD monitoring of implementation of the evaluation and hazard control procedures under this subpart when an EBLL case has occurred, HUD is proposing that the designated party notify the HUD field office and the OLHCHH within 5 business days of being so notified by the public health department or medical health care professional.
Regarding the other tenant-based rental assisted units where a child less than 6 years is residing or expected to reside in a building with a tenant-based rental assisted unit with a child less than 6 years who has an EBLL, as noted in Section II.C.2, above, HUD is proposing that those other units and common areas servicing them receive a visual assessment for deteriorated paint. (As noted above, HUD does not have the discretion to require risk assessments in those other units and common areas servicing those other units.) The visual assessments would have to be conducted within 30 calendar days after receipt of the environmental investigation report. Similarly, the response action, should deteriorated paint be identified, would be paint stabilization, a treatment that does not require the quantitative information about dust-lead and soil-lead levels needed for the full set of interim control activities that a risk assessment provides. If deteriorated paint is found in any of these other units, the paint would have to be stabilized on a schedule described above, within 30 calendar days, or within 90 calendar days if more than 20 units have deteriorated paint such that the control work would disturb painted surfaces that total more than the de minimis threshold of § 35.1350(d). Of course, a designated party may choose to conduct a risk assessment or environmental investigation of those other units and common areas, and conduct interim controls if lead-based paint hazards are identified, and even conduct that evaluation and hazard control in unassisted units with children under age 6, and HUD encourages them to do so.
For the sake of clarity regarding target housing occupied by families receiving tenant-based rental assistance with children under age 6 in which deteriorated paint has been identified by a visual assessment, HUD proposes to add a sentence to the end of § 35.1215(b). Regarding a subsequent housing assistance payment (HAP) contract for the unit (
While HUD welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposed rule, HUD is seeking specific comment on the following questions:
1. To facilitate effective HUD monitoring of responses to a case of an elevated blood lead level, the proposed rule would have designated parties provide documentation to HUD that the response actions have been conducted in the child's unit and in all other assisted units with a child under age 6, or if there are such other units, that the designated party has been complying with the LSHR for the past 12 months, and need not evaluate those other units.
a. Is this approach sufficient for HUD to effectively monitor response actions in these cases, and why? Are there areas in which reporting and oversight could be strengthened?
b. Can the approach to monitoring response actions in these cases be streamlined while maintaining its effectiveness, and if so, how?
2. Regarding the definition of elevated blood lead level in the proposed rule, is the definition appropriately protective of the health of children in assisted housing covered by the rule? Too protective? Not protective enough? Why?
3. Regarding the set of types of housing assistance covered by the proposed rule (
a. If it is too protective, why, and which types of housing assistance should be removed from the proposed rule?
b. If it is not protective enough, why, which additional type or types of housing assistance should be included, and how would sufficient resources be provided to ensure implementation and monitoring of the rule in that additional assisted housing?
4. If interim controls or abatement in a housing unit takes longer than 5 calendar days, or if other occupant protection requirements of 24 CFR 35.1345(a)(2) are not met, the occupants of the unit shall be shall be temporarily relocated before and during hazard reduction activities.
a. HUD is seeking data on the fraction of lead hazard control activities that take longer than 5 calendar days, including the type of activity (
b. HUD is seeking information on the costs of temporary relocation, on a per day basis (average amount or day-specific amounts, as is available), including breakouts of expenses for such categories as lodging, transportation, meals, and incidental expense amounts, if the information is available that way, or as lump sum per-day or per relocation period amounts.
Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned. Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public.
OMB reviewed this proposed rule under Executive Order 12866 (entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review”). This rule was determined to be a “significant regulatory action,” as defined in 3(f) of the order. The docket file is available for public inspection electronically at Federal eRulemaking Portal at
HUD is publishing, concurrently with this proposal, its draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that examines the costs and benefits of the proposed regulatory action in conjunction with this proposed rule, organized into three sections: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Sensitivity Analysis; and Economic Impacts. The RIA is available on-line at:
The analysis of net benefits reflects costs and benefits associated with the first year of hazard evaluation and reduction activities under the proposed rule. These costs and benefits, however, include the present value of future costs and benefits associated with first year hazard reduction activities. For example, the costs associated with first year activities include the present value of future reevaluation costs. Similarly, the benefits of first year activities include the present value of lifetime earnings benefits for children living in or visiting the affected unit during that first year, and for children living in or visiting that unit during the second and subsequent years after hazard reduction activities.
In regard to the discount rate used for this regulatory analysis, HUD is using both the 3 percent, and the 7 percent discount rates in accordance with OMB guidance in OMB Circulars A-4 on Regulatory Analysis,
Employing a 3 percent discount rate of the lifetime earnings estimates, the RIA concludes that monetized benefits of activities have a present value of $97.91 million; while first-year costs are $22.17 million. Thus the estimated net benefit is $75.74 million using a 3 percent discount rate. If a 7 percent discount rate is used for lifetime earnings benefits, the monetized present value of the benefits of the proposed rule are estimated to be $31.81 million, and estimated first year costs remain at $22.17 .28 million. The proposed rule would therefore be seen as having a net benefit of $9.64 million using the 7 percent discount rate. Further, the monetized benefit estimates represent a lower bound on benefits, as they only account for lifetime earnings resulting from cognitive impacts on children under age six. Reductions in lead exposure would be expected to result in additional health benefits for these children, as well as older children and adults living in or visiting the housing units addressed by the rule. Such additional benefits include avoidance of decreased attention, increased impulsivity, hyperactivity,
That the benefit-cost calculation giving lower weight to future generations shows a smaller net benefit is not surprising, given that the monetized benefits of the rule pertain to the future earnings of children under age 6, while the costs pertain to the designated parties of the housing in which the young children currently reside. As noted above, the calculation included monetized but not non-monetized quality of life factors associated with children's lower intelligence, fewer skills, and reduced education and job potential, and adults' decreased cognitive function decrements, psychopathological effects (self-reported symptoms of depression and anxiety), hypertension, coronary heart disease, blood system effects (decreased red blood cell survival and function, and altered heme synthesis),
The number of housing units that would require evaluation, possible hazard reduction, and/or reporting of EBLL information to HUD would be changed by the proposed rule. Accordingly, HUD is requesting OMB approval for revising its information collection request approval to reflect the change in the burden.
The information collection requirements contained in this rule have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), for incorporation under existing OMB approval number 2539-0009. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), HUD is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the information collection requirements in this interim rule regarding:
(1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(3) Whether the collection of information enhances the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Whether the information collection minimizes the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding the information collection requirements in this rule. Under the provisions of 5 CFR part 1320, OMB is required to make a decision concerning this collection of information between 30 and 60 days after the publication date. Therefore, a comment on the information collection requirements is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives the comment within 30 days of the publication date. This time frame does not affect the deadline for comments to the agency on the interim rule, however. Comments must refer to the interim rule by name and docket number (FR-5816-P-01) and must be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Fax number: (202) 395-6947.
Anna P. Guido, HUD Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4186, Washington, DC 20410.
Interested persons may submit comments regarding the information collection requirements electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
The information collection requirements contained in this rule have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). HUD has determined that the following provisions contain information collection requirements: 24 CFR part 35, subparts D, H, I, L, and M.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), HUD has reviewed this proposed rule before publication and by approving it for publication, certifies that the proposed regulatory requirements would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, other than those impacts specifically required to be applied universally by the statute. As discussed below, the requirements of the proposed rule are applicable only to a limited and specifically defined portion of the nation's housing stock. To the extent that the requirements affect small entities, the impact is generally discussed in the economic analysis that accompanies this proposed rule.
Specifically, the economic analysis estimated the number of index units and other assisted units to be evaluated and, possibly, based on the evaluation, having lead hazard control work done. For each type of assistance and for all types of assistance together, the economic analysis also estimated:
• The cost per unit of the evaluation (environmental investigation for index units, and risk assessments or visual assessment for other units that are assisted and have a child under age 6 residing, as per the current LSHR);
• The total cost of the evaluation and hazard control (for index units, other units, and both); and
• The percentage of units evaluated and possibly, based on the evaluation results, hazard controlled (again, for index units, other units, and both).
The estimates are summarized in the table below.
Among the key results are that:
• About 6,887 housing units would have a child under age 6 with a blood lead level that is elevated but not an environmental intervention blood lead level; these units would be required to have an environmental investigation and have any lead-based paint hazards controlled.
• About 14,935 other housing units would be evaluated and have any lead-based paint hazards controlled.
• About 0.46 percent of the assisted housing stock covered by this rulemaking would be evaluated and have any lead-based paint hazards controlled, specifically, 0.90 percent of the public housing stock, 0.44 percent of the HUD project-based rental assisted housing stock, 0.28 percent of the tenant-based rental assisted housing stock, and 0.14 percent of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) project-based rental assisted housing stock.
• The total cost of evaluation and control (and the small amount of temporary relocation of occupants) would be $26.63 million, including $10.01 million for public housing, $6.33 million for HUD project-based rental assisted housing, $9.81 million for tenant-based rental assisted housing, and $286,000 for USDA project-based rental assisted housing.
• Using the 3 percent discount rate, benefits are estimated at $97.91 million, with net benefits (
• Regarding index units, for FY 2017, an estimated 1,899 units of public housing, 1,494 units of HUD project-based rental assisted housing, 3,383 units of tenant-based rental assisted housing, and 112 units of USDA project-based rental assisted housing have children under age 6 with EBLLs that are not EIBLLs, that is, children for whom an environmental investigation and possible (
• Regarding other units to have lead hazard control work conducted, for FY 2015, there would be an estimated 8,014 units of public housing, 3,783 units of HUD project-based rental assisted housing, 3,383 units of tenant-based rental assisted housing, and 112 units of USDA project-based rental assisted housing.
• The conservative (
A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The Finding of No Significant Impact is available for public inspection electronically at Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule will not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This rule does not impose any federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of UMRA.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Lead poisoning, Mortgage insurance, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, HUD amends 24 CFR part 35 to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 4821, and 4851.
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) However, for the protection of the privacy of the child and the child's family or guardians, no notice of environmental investigation shall be posted to any centrally located common area.
(a) If a child less than 6 years of age living in a federally assisted dwelling unit has an elevated blood lead level, the owner shall immediately conduct an environmental investigation. Interim controls of identified lead-based paint hazards shall be conducted in accordance with § 35.1330.
(b)
(1) The owner conducted an environmental investigation and conducted interim controls of identified lead-based paint hazards between the date the child's blood was last sampled and the date the owner received the notification of the elevated blood lead level; or
(2) The owner provides the Federal agency documentation of compliance with evaluation, notification, lead disclosure, ongoing lead-based paint maintenance, and lead-based paint management requirements under this part throughout the 12 months preceding the date the owner received the environmental investigation report.
(c) Interim controls are complete when clearance is achieved in accordance with § 35.1340.
(d) The Federal agency shall establish a timetable for completing environmental investigations and hazard reduction when a child identified as having an elevated blood lead level is identified.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d) If an environmental investigation, evaluation or hazard reduction is undertaken, each owner shall provide notice to occupants in accordance with § 35.125.
(e)
(2) The owner shall also report each confirmed case of a child with an elevated blood lead level to the HUD field office and HUD Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes within 5 business days of being so notified.
(3) The owner shall provide to the HUD field office documentation that the designated party has conducted the activities of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, within 10 business days of the deadline for each activity.
(f)
(2)
(ii) If the visual assessment conducted under paragraph (f)(1) of this section identifies deteriorated paint, the owner shall stabilize the paint in those units and common areas within 30 calendar days, or within 90 calendar days if more than 20 units have lead-based paint hazards such that the control work would disturb painted surfaces that total more than the de minimis threshold of § 35.1350(d).
(3) The owner shall provide to the HUD field office documentation that the designated party has conducted the activities of paragraph (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section, within 10 business days of the deadline for each activity.
(4) The requirements of this paragraph (f) do not apply if the property meets any of these conditions:
(i) If the property is covered by § 35.715, the owner conducted a risk assessment and conducted interim controls of identified lead-based paint hazards in accordance with § 35.175(b) between the date the child's blood was last sampled and the date the owner received the notification of the elevated blood lead level;
(ii) If the property is covered by § 35.720, the owner conducted a visual assessment and stabilized deteriorated paint (unless it was determined not to be lead-based paint) identified in accordance with § 35.720(b)(2) in the other assisted dwelling units and the common areas serving those units, between the date the child's blood was last sampled and the date the owner received the notification of the elevated blood lead level; or
(iii) The owner has documentation of compliance with evaluation, notification, lead disclosure, ongoing lead-based paint maintenance, and lead-based paint management requirements under this part throughout the 12 months preceding the date the owner received the environmental investigation report pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section; and
(iv) The owner provides to the HUD field office documentation that it has conducted the activities of paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section, within 10 business days of the deadline for each activity.
(g) HUD encourages the owner to evaluate for sources of lead exposure in units other than those covered by this subpart, and to control such sources.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e
(2) HUD shall also report each confirmed case of a child with an elevated blood lead level to the HUD Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes within 5 business days of being so notified.
(3) HUD shall provide to the HUD Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes documentation that it has conducted the activities of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, within 10 business days of the deadline for each activity.
(f)
(2) If the risk assessment conducted under paragraph (f)(1) of this section identifies lead-based paint hazards, HUD shall complete the reduction of identified lead-based paint hazards in accordance with § 35.1325 or § 35.1330 in those units and common areas within 30 calendar days, or within 90 calendar days if more than 20 units have lead-based paint hazards such that the control work would disturb painted surfaces that total more than the de minimis threshold of § 35.1350(d).
(3) The requirements of this paragraph (f) do not apply if HUD, between the date the child's blood was last sampled and the date HUD received the notification of the elevated blood lead level, conducted a risk assessment in the other assisted dwelling units and the common areas serving those units, and conducted interim controls of identified lead-based paint hazards in accordance with § 35.820.
(4) The requirements of this section do not apply if HUD has documentation of compliance with evaluation, notification, lead disclosure, ongoing lead-based paint maintenance, and lead-based paint management requirements under this part throughout the 12 months preceding the date HUD received the environmental investigation report pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
(5) HUD shall provide to the HUD Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes documentation that it has conducted the activities of paragraph (f)(1) through (3) of this section, or that it has complied with the requirements in paragraph (f)(4) of this section, within 10 business days of the deadline for each activity.
(g)
(h)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2) The PHA shall report each confirmed case of a child with an elevated blood lead level to the HUD field office and the HUD Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes within 5 business days of being so notified.
(3) The PHA shall provide to the HUD field office documentation that it has conducted the activities of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, within 10 business days of the deadline for each activity.
(f)
(2) If the environmental investigation conducted pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section identifies lead-based paint hazards and previous evaluations of the building conducted pursuant to § 35.1320 identified lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards, the PHA shall, for other dwelling units in the property in which a child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside on the date hazard reduction under paragraph (c) of this section is complete, and the common areas serving those units, conduct a risk assessment within 30 calendar days after receipt of the environmental investigation report if there are 20 or fewer such units, or 60 calendar days if there are more such units.
(3) Control measures. If the risk assessment conducted under paragraph (f)(2) of this section identifies lead-based paint hazards, the PHA shall control the hazards in those units and common areas within 30 calendar days, or within 90 calendar days if more than 20 units have lead-based paint hazards such that the control work would disturb painted surfaces that total more than the de minimis threshold of § 35.1350(d).
(4) The PHA shall provide to the HUD field office documentation that it has conducted the activities of paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section, within 10 business days of the deadline for each activity.
(5) The requirements of this paragraph (f) of this section do not apply if the PHA, between the date the child's blood was last sampled and the date the PHA received the notification of the elevated blood lead level, conducted a risk assessment of the other assisted dwelling units and the common areas serving those units, and conducted interim controls of identified hazards in accordance with § 35.1120(b); or if the PHA has documentation of compliance with evaluation, notification, lead disclosure, ongoing lead-based paint maintenance, and lead-based paint management requirements under this part throughout the 12 months preceding the date the PHA received the environmental investigation report pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section; and, in either case, the PHA provided the HUD field office, within 10 business days after receiving the notification of the elevated blood lead level,
(g) HUD encourages the PHA to evaluate for sources of lead exposure in units other than those covered by this subpart, and to control such sources.
(b) * * * For the unit subsequently to come under a HAP contract with the housing agency for occupancy by a family with a child under age 6, paint stabilization must be completed, including clearance being achieved in accordance with Sec. 35.1340.
(a) Within 15 calendar days after being notified by a public health department or other medical health care provider that a child of less than 6 years of age living in a dwelling unit to which this subpart applies has been identified as having an elevated blood lead level, the designated party shall complete an environmental investigation of the dwelling unit in which the child lived at the time the blood was last sampled and of common areas servicing the dwelling unit. When the environmental investigation is complete, the designated party shall immediately provide the report of the environmental investigation to the owner of the dwelling unit. If the child identified as having an elevated blood lead level is no longer living in the unit when the designated party receives notification from the public health department or other medical health care provider, but another household receiving tenant-based rental assistance is living in the unit or is planning to live there, the requirements of this section apply just as they do if the child still lives in the unit. If a public health department has already conducted an evaluation of the dwelling unit, or the designated party conducted an environmental investigation of the unit and common areas servicing the unit between the date the child's blood was last sampled and the date when the designated party received the notification of the elevated blood lead level, the requirements of this paragraph shall not apply. If the designated party or the owner conducted a risk assessment of the unit and common areas servicing the unit during that period, the designated party need not conduct another risk assessment there but shall conduct the elements of an environmental investigation not already conducted during the risk assessment.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2) The owner shall also report each confirmed case of a child with an elevated blood lead level to the HUD field office and the HUD Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes within 5 business days of being so notified.
(3) The owner shall provide to the HUD field office documentation that it has conducted the activities of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, within 10 business days of the deadline for each activity.
(f)
(2) If the visual assessment conducted under paragraph (f)(1) of this section identifies deteriorated paint, the owner shall stabilize the paint within 30 calendar days, or within 90 calendar days if more than 20 units have deteriorated paint such that the control work would disturb painted surfaces that total more than the de minimis threshold of § 35.1350(d).
(3) The requirements of this paragraph (f) of this section do not apply if the designated party or the owner, between the date the child's blood was last sampled and the date the owner received the notification of the elevated blood lead level, conducted a visual assessment or risk assessment in those other assisted dwelling units and the common areas serving those units, and the owner stabilized deteriorated paint (unless it was determined not to be lead-based paint) identified; or if the owner has documentation of compliance with evaluation, notification, lead disclosure, ongoing lead-based paint maintenance,
(g) HUD encourages the designated party or the owner to evaluate for sources of lead exposure in units other than those covered by this subpart, and to control such sources.
(h)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Connecticut on November 19, 2012. We propose to approve Connecticut's request to remove two regulations from its SIP that regulate “open burning” and “portable fuel container spillage control.” In place of the open burning regulation, we propose to approve into the Connecticut SIP a Connecticut statute that controls open burning. We also propose to approve a definition of “brush,” which was included in a December 15, 2015 SIP submittal by Connecticut to meet infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act for the 2012 fine particle (PM
Written comments must be received on or before October 3, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0471 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this
Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1684, fax number (617) 918-0684, email
In the Final Rules Section of this
For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS.
Denial of petition for addition of a health condition.
On April 4, 2016, the Administrator of the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program received a petition (Petition 013) to add “relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (autoimmune)” to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions (List). Upon reviewing the information provided by the petitioner, the Administrator has determined that Petition 013 is not substantially different from Petitions
The Administrator of the WTC Health Program is denying this petition for the addition of a health condition as of September 1, 2016.
Rachel Weiss, Program Analyst, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS: C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226; telephone (855) 818-1629 (this is a toll-free number); email
Title I of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-347, as amended by Pub. L. 114-113), added Title XXXIII to the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act),
All references to the Administrator of the WTC Health Program (Administrator) in this notice mean the Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) or his or her designee.
Pursuant to section 3312(a)(6)(B) of the PHS Act, interested parties may petition the Administrator to add a health condition to the List in 42 CFR 88.1. Within 90 days after receipt of a petition to add a condition to the List, the Administrator must take one of the following four actions described in section 3312(a)(6)(B) and 42 CFR 88.17: (1) Request a recommendation of the STAC; (2) publish a proposed rule in the
The Secretary, HHS, or her designee, the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), authorized the undersigned, the Administrator of the WTC Health Program, to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication as an official document of the WTC Health Program. Thomas R. Frieden, M.D., M.P.H., Director, CDC, and Administrator, ATSDR, approved this document for publication on August 24, 2016.
On April 4, 2016, the Administrator received a petition from a responder in the WTC Health Program to add “relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (autoimmune)” to the List (Petition 013).
This is the fifth petition to the Administrator requesting the addition of autoimmune diseases, including various subtypes, to the List; each of the first four autoimmune disease petitions were denied due to insufficient evidence, as described in respective
Petition 013 references 1, 2, and 4 are links to the same newspaper article announcing the online publication of a study published in 2015.
The fifth reference provided in Petition 013 does not specifically identify a peer-reviewed, published epidemiologic study of the health condition among 9/11-exposed populations, nor is it a clinical case report of the health condition in WTC responders or survivors. Petition 013 reference 5 is a link to the proceedings of a research meeting conducted by the WTC Health Program in 2014.
As discussed in the April 2016 FRN finding of insufficient evidence for Petition 011, the 2015 Webber
In addition to a review of the studies presented in Petition 013, the WTC Health Program Science Team conducted a review of the scientific literature to determine if the available scientific information has the potential to provide a basis for a decision on whether to add the condition to the List. A previously conducted literature review for autoimmune diseases in response to Petition 007
The Science Team identified five additional references to review for relevance. Of the five additional references, only one study, published in 2016 by Webber
The 2016 Webber
All of the references and potential medical bases presented in Petition 013 were previously identified and assessed in Petition 011; as discussed above, these medical bases had significant limitations that prevented them from having the potential to provide a basis to propose adding autoimmune diseases to the List. The Science Team did not find any information during their review of Petition 013 which would alter the assessment of the previously reviewed studies. Moreover, none of the studies identified, including the 2015 and 2016 Webber
The Administrator has established a policy for evaluating whether to propose the addition of non-cancer health conditions to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions.
The Administrator initially reviewed the findings presented in the 2015 Webber
Finding no additional relevant studies with regard to Petition 013, the Administrator has accordingly determined that insufficient evidence exists to take further action at this time, including either proposing the addition of autoimmune diseases, including multiple sclerosis, to the List (pursuant to PHS Act, sec. 3312(a)(6)(B)(ii) and 42 CFR 88.17(a)(2)(ii)) or publishing a determination not to publish a proposed rule in the
For the reasons discussed above, the request made in Petition 013 to add “relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (autoimmune)” to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions is denied.
The Administrator will continue to monitor the scientific literature for publication of the results of the ongoing WTC Health Registry study discussed above (reference 5 in the petition) and any other studies that address autoimmune diseases among 9/11-exposed populations.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
NHTSA proposes to amend the means of recall notification to owners and purchasers required under the Safety Act to be in an electronic manner, in addition to first class mail, in accordance with Section 30130 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and Section 24104 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act). Through this proposed rule, NHTSA also seeks to improve the efficacy of recalls by requiring manufacturers to send additional notifications of defects or noncompliance with applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) if a second notification by the manufacturer does not result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or replacement equipment being returned for remedy.
Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2016. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, NHTSA is also seeking comment on amendments to an information collection. See the Paperwork Reduction Act section under Rulemaking Analyses and Notices below. Please submit all comments relating to the information collection requirements to NHTSA and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the address listed in the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Regardless of how you submit your comments, please include the docket number of this document.
You may also call the Docket at (202) 366-9322.
Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
For substantive issues: Jennifer Timian, Office of Defects Investigation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, at (202) 366-4000. For legal issues: Justine Casselle, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, at (202) 366-2992.
In the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Congress enacted a provision authorizing NHTSA to amend the means by which a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment provides notification to owners, purchasers, and dealers that a vehicle or equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or does not comply with an applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS). Public Law 112-141, 31310, 126 Stat. 758 (2012). More recently, Section 24104 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) expressly provided that NHTSA amend 49 CFR part 577 to require notification to owners and purchasers by electronic means in addition to notification by first class mail. Public Law 114-94, 24104 (2015). MAP-21 further authorized NHTSA to improve recall effectiveness by requiring manufacturers to send additional notifications of defects or noncompliance if a second notification by the manufacturer does not result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or equipment being returned for remedy. Public Law 112-141, 31310, 126 Stat. 758 (2012). NHTSA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting comments and supporting information about what NHTSA might require as to electronic notification.
49 U.S.C. 30118(c) requires that, in the event of a defect or noncompliance with an applicable FMVSS in a motor vehicle or replacement equipment, manufacturers notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of the vehicle or equipment pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30119. The manner by which this required notice is given to owners, purchasers, and dealers of vehicles or equipment is governed by 49 U.S.C. 30119(d). Prior to MAP-21, for vehicle recalls, section 30119(d) required notice to be sent by first class mail to the registered owner or, if the registered owner could not be identified, to the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer. 49 U.S.C. 30119(d)(1)(A)-(B). For recalls of replacement equipment, the statute required notification by first class mail to the most recent purchaser.
Section 31310 of MAP-21 amended the notice provisions in 49 U.S.C. 30119(d) to allow the Secretary of Transportation, and by delegation NHTSA's Administrator, the flexibility to determine the manner by which notifications about safety recalls under 49 U.S.C. 30118 must be sent. The amended statutory language authorized the Agency to engage in a rulemaking to permit notification to owners and purchasers of safety recalls by means other than first class mail. In December 2015, Congress enacted the FAST Act expounding on this authority by expressly requiring the Agency to amend 49 CFR 577.7 to include notification to owners and purchasers by electronic means in addition to notification by first class mail.
Section 31310 of MAP-21 aimed to improve the efficacy of recalls not just through updating the means of notification, but also through allowing the Secretary to order additional notifications when necessary. Previously, 49 U.S.C. 30119(e) authorized the Secretary to order a second notification if the Secretary determined that the first notification failed to result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or items of equipment being returned for remedy. The statute was silent, however, as to whether additional notifications beyond a second notification could be required. Section 31310 resolved this question by amending 49 U.S.C. 30119(e), which now, under 49 U.S.C. 30119(e)(2)(A)(i), authorizes the Secretary to order additional notifications if the Secretary determines that a second notification also failed to result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or items of equipment being returned for remedy.
In the ANPRM, NHTSA invited comments and supporting information on how the Agency can best leverage the new flexibilities given under MAP-21 and the FAST Act to update the required means manufacturers use, whether as a first notification or as a follow-up notification, to successfully notify their customers and urge them toward seeking the free remedies offered. The ANRPM posed several questions about the variety of means and methods manufacturers use to communicate with their customers. Additionally, the ANPRM posed several questions about general owner knowledge and behavior, and asked commenters to present any data on owner behavior in the recall context, including whether owners were responsive to incentives and to the currently prescribed content and layout of the notifications.
We received 16 comments in response to the ANPRM regarding our proposed update of Part 577. Comments were submitted by Advocates for Highway Safety; Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance); American Automotive Leasing Association; IHS Automotive (IHS); FCA US LLC (FCA); General Motors LLC (GM); Global Automakers (Global); NAFA Fleet Management Association (NAFA); National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA); National Independent Automobile Dealers Association (NIADA); Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA); Pandora Media, Inc. (Pandora); Tire Industry Association (TIA); Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association
Many of the comments addressed general owner knowledge and behavior and proposed potential changes to the specific information provided to owners and the layout of the notifications. Many also proposed that NHTSA should conduct studies on these matters. Although the comments were insightful, NHTSA is not proposing additional or changed requirements as to the specific content and layout of notifications at this time. This NPRM is limited to updating the means of notification by requiring electronic notification.
Most commenters generally supported the use of electronic means and provided suggestions on which types would be best suited for recall notifications. Advocates for Highway Safety stated its belief that email and text message notification should be required, as both methods allow for delivery receipt. It also suggested that newspaper, radio, television, internet, and social media be required methods of notification. Finally, it suggested that manufacturers use direct-to-vehicle communications to notify owners.
IHS suggested that social media, digital radio broadcasts, and connected car applications are “future looking applications of reaching audiences who may not respond to direct mail or even email notices.” IHS further commented that some manufacturers use a method called Voice Broadcast which is a “notice in advance of the mailing or other communication to alert the consumer to the forthcoming first class mail communication.”
The Alliance recommended that the Agency permit a multi-tiered approach that allows manufacturers to use a variety of electronic communication methods. The Alliance noted that manufacturers already use multiple electronic communication methods such as “robo-calls, agent-assisted calls, Facebook notifications, and other means,” especially when recall completion rates are low.
Similar to the Alliance's comments, GM suggested that any changes to Part 577 be flexible, allowing for new technologies as they arise, and further commented that the demographics of the vehicle and the particular recall issue must be better understood as they each play a key role in recall completion rates. GM noted that it has used robo-calls, live calls, in-vehicle calls, and social media to reach out to its owners. The company found social media effective for the purpose of raising awareness, but could not tie it to significant gains in recall completion.
Tesla provided a contextual example of successful electronic notifications used in a recent recall. As Tesla has every Tesla customer's email address, email notifications were sent to every customer two weeks before the physical mailings were ready to be mailed. Thirty percent of Tesla customers had their vehicle remedied by the time the physical mailings were sent via first class mail. Tesla agrees that electronic notification is instantaneous but, though very effective, should be supplemental to the current first class mail standard.
NAFA agreed that electronic notification should be added to the existing first class mail notification.
NIADA suggested that NHTSA move away from a “one-sized fits all approach,” and allow notification means such as email, text messaging, internet, OnStar, Blue Link, and other technologies. NIADA commented broadly that it supports strategies that expand how owners are reminded of recalls.
Pandora noted that it worked with GM in the past to notify targeted owners with audio notifications about open recalls. Pandora further shared that its notifications are interactive and can connect a user directly to scheduling or to a manufacturer's Web site.
EMA shared that many fleets and dealers already use a variety of electronic means to connect with owners, such as email, telephone, text messages, direct service database flags, and more.
TIA and NJGCA provided no data as to the effectiveness of first class mail notifications, but opined that “change-of-address” impacts notifications. TIA further commented that tire manufacturers “could use the Internet and social media to notify owners about safety recalls . . .” but tire manufacturers currently only provide first class mail notifications and sometimes a press release.
Not all commenters supported the use of electronic means during the recall notification process and some commenters highlighted some concerns or limitations with various methods of electronic communications.
Survey results provided by the Alliance and Global included information about the success of various means of notification. Per the results, neither was able to correlate recall completion rates with a specific outreach method. The Alliance and Global noted that there is no ability to connect social media outreach to particular VINs and no guarantee that owners will not treat emails from manufacturers as SPAM or JUNK, even with a valid delivery receipt.
GM also recognized some concerns such as the difficulty of obtaining owner email addresses without paying a third-party and social media privacy policies. GM did not recommend that email notification replace first class mail notification, and noted that delivery rates through first class mail can be as high as 96%.
The American Automotive Leasing Association stated its position that a change to Part 577 should not burden lessors with requirements to send any additional notifications, email or otherwise, to vehicle lessees.
EMA commented that existing first class mail notification is very effective for commercial vehicle recalls because the owner records are typically better kept amongst the commercial vehicle market. Additionally, EMA does not believe social media notifications will be useful for the commercial vehicle market.
Three (3) commenters, the Alliance, GM, and TIA, commented on specific privacy concerns or existing state and Federal laws that might be impacted by the use of electronic recall communications.
GM noted that the expertise to market via electronic communications is often housed in the manufacturer's marketing department. While a specific legal restriction was not cited, GM did suggest that owner data from state registrations would need housing in a “safe haven” where the manufacturer could only use that data within legal constraints. GM further mentioned that some social media privacy policies restrict the amount of feedback the vehicle manufacturer can obtain and some publishers do not offer any feedback at all. As such, it would be difficult to measure the effectiveness of some social media recall notifications.
The Alliance commented that some forms of social media, like Twitter, restrict the amount of content shared to users. For example, a recall communication containing a summary of the recall, safety risk, available remedy, and contact information would be difficult to transmit given Twitter's 140 character limit restriction. Also, the Alliance recommended an additional study needed to ensure new means of notification do not conflict with the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited
TIA cautioned the Agency in requiring additional personal information to be provided back to the tire manufacturers in order to facilitate electronic recall notifications. TIA noted that 49 CFR part 574 prohibits manufacturers from using registration information for marketing purposes; however, TIA claims tire manufacturers have circumvented this prohibition and TIA worries any additional data that tire retailers must collect (such as customer email addresses) may create a competitive disadvantage to independent tire retailers.
After considering the relevant comments provided, we propose to amend 49 CFR 577.7 to require notification by electronic means in addition to first class mail every time a recall notification is required. The proposal gives the recalling manufacturer the flexibility to define and determine the electronic means they feel are most effective to employ in an effort to optimize the recalls completion for a particular recall campaign. As many of the commenters noted, there are a wide variety of electronic means currently available for use by manufacturers and some have chosen to use as a supplementary means of notification with varying degrees of success. A flexible approach values the knowledge and experience of the recalling manufacturers concerning what means are most likely to reach and resonate with their owners and motivate them toward taking steps to have their products remedied.
Accordingly, we propose defining “electronic means” to include “electronic mail, text messages, radio or television notifications, vehicle infotainment console messages, over-the-air alerts, social media or targeted online campaigns, phone calls, including automated phone calls, or other real time means.” As with any recall communication, the Agency retains the discretion to require other means and additional notifications if the manufacturer's chosen means is impractical, does not feasibly reach all of the purchasers or owners impacted, or the Agency otherwise deems inappropriate. At this time we decline to set any additional and mandatory notification means beyond the electronic means identified here.
The Agency recognizes that the proposed definition of “electronic means” is broad and that certain proposed means of electronic notification may be difficult to achieve in practice given the current content requirements of 49 CFR part 577. We propose a broad definition of “electronic means” now in anticipation that we may amend the content requirements of 49 CFR part 577 in the future. However, at this time, we propose to require that any electronic notification issued under this paragraph comply with the content requirements of 49 CFR part 577, or provide a hyperlink to a notice that complies with the content requirements of 49 CFR part 577, or a representative copy of such a notice along with instructions on how a vehicle owner can determine whether his or her vehicle is impacted.
Vehicle safety recalls require inclusion of the owner's VIN in the part 577 notification letter. We recognize that is not always feasible through social media or other electronic means where a notice may be viewed by more than one individual. In that case, a representative copy of a notice may be used, so long as additional information is given as to how an owner could readily determine whether his or her vehicle or equipment is impacted by the recall. For those manufacturers that are currently required to support NHTSA's VIN search tool and offer VIN-based safety recall search tools on their Web sites pursuant to existing regulation, the communication must also direct viewers to NHTSA's VIN search tool
It must be noted that this proposed rule does not alter a manufacturer's requirements under 49 CFR part 573, nor is an amendment to 49 CFR part 573 required at this time. Manufacturers must continue to comply with 49 CFR 573.6 by filing representative copies of “all notices, bulletins, and other communications that relate directly to the defect or noncompliance and are sent to more than one manufacturer, distributor, dealer or purchaser.” Electronic notifications are notices, bulletins, or other communications under 49 CFR 573.6. Currently, manufacturers provide representative copies to NHTSA via the online Recalls Portal. Upon the publishing of the Final Rule, manufacturers will continue to do so, as the online Recalls Portal will be updated to allow for manufacturers to select their choice among one of the allowable electronic means. Representative copies are required even if a manufacturer chooses to issue Part 577-compliant notices via electronic means such as radio or television notifications, vehicle infotainment console messages, over-the-air alerts, telephone calls, or other allowable means. In practice, manufacturers can submit to the online Recalls Portal copies of electronic messages (emails), screenshots of messages or alerts, and scripts of calls or ads, for example.
We also note that 49 CFR 577.7(c)(2) concerning notifications to dealers and distributers already contains language providing for notification “by certified mail, verifiable electronic means such as receipts or logs from electronic mail or satellite distribution system, or other more expeditious and verifiable means. . . .” At this time, the Agency does not believe a change to the required means of notification to dealers and distributers is warranted.
In response to concerns expressed about whether the proposed electronic notification requirement will conflict with existing federal laws aimed at protecting consumers and businesses from unwanted electronic messages, the Agency's position is that it will not. Recall notifications are safety-related informational messages. The proposed changes in this rulemaking are not intended to exempt from federal laws, including but not limited to the CAN-SPAM Act, the TCPA, and the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, conduct that is unlawful under those laws.
We request comments on this proposal and any alternative approaches that allow for numerous electronic notification means, but at the same time ensure that the notification communicates the long-standing and essential components of traditional Part 577 first class mailings. That is, that the manufacturer had decided there is a safety defect or failure to meet minimum safety standards; that the safety defect or failure to comply increases the risk of a motor vehicle crash, injury and/or fire; a safety recall is being conducted; and a remedy will be provided at no cost. More specifically, we request comment on our proposed approach to permit discretion in the means chosen to meet the requirement of electronic notification. In addition to our request for comments on our proposed definition of “electronic means,” we request comment on whether the terms “social media or targeted online campaigns” need further definition, given that such proposed electronic notification means are fundamentally different from other means targeted at individual owners. Finally, we request comment on our proposal to require inclusion of directions to NHTSA's VIN search tool and the manufacturer's search tool, for
As mentioned above, MAP-21 authorized NHTSA to require manufacturers to send additional notifications of defects or noncompliance if a second notification by the manufacturer does not result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or equipment being returned for remedy. Public Law 112-141, § 31310, 126 Stat. 758 (2012). Although 49 CFR 577.10 currently provides that the Administrator “may authorize the use of other media besides first-class mail for a follow-up notification,” we propose a minor revision to this section for clarity and consistency purposes. Still subject to the Administrator's approval, we propose clarifying that a follow-up notification shall be sent by first class mail and by electronic means in the same manners we propose be included in 49 CFR 577.7 above. We request comment on this proposed clarification.
This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13563. NHTSA has considered the impact of this NPRM under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This action would amend Part 577 to update the procedures by which manufacturers notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of defects and noncompliances in an effort to improve vehicle safety recall completion rates. The rulemaking imposes no new significant burdens on the manufacturers and does not create significant related costs that would require the development of a full cost/benefit evaluation. Since this action also does not change the number of those organizations or individuals subject to this requirement, the impacts of the rule are limited. Therefore, this rulemaking has been determined to be not “significant” under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures and the policies of the Office of Management and Budget.
We have also considered the impact of this notice under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following provides the factual basis for this certification under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The amendments almost entirely affect manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.
SBA uses size standards based on the North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”), Subsector 336—Transportation Equipment Manufacturing, which provides a small business size standard of 1,000 employees or fewer for automobile manufacturing businesses. Other motor vehicle-related industries have lower size requirements that range between 100 and 750 employees. For example, according to the SBA coding system, businesses that manufacture truck trailers, travel trailers/campers, and vehicular lighting equipment, qualify as small businesses if they employ 500 or fewer employees. Small businesses are subject to the notification requirements and therefore may be affected by the proposed changes in this NPRM. However, the impacts of this rulemaking on small businesses are minimal, as this proposed procedural update does not impose a significant additional burden or additional costs.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. Because this rulemaking would not have a $100 million effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment will be prepared.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et. seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. In compliance with the PRA, we announce that NHTSA is seeking comment on a revision of a currently approved collection.
This approved information collection is associated with 49 CFR Part 573 and portions of 49 CFR part 577, and consists of important safety recall information that motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers must submit.
The information is needed for NHTSA to better serve the public by effectively monitoring safety recalls and by providing timely recall information to consumers regarding specific vehicles. Owners and purchasers will benefit from the increased ease with which they can ascertain information on recalled vehicles. The public at large will benefit from a decrease in the numbers of defect or noncompliant vehicles on public roads and, concurrently, a decrease in the incident or risk of incident of injuries and fatalities associated with those defects and failures to comply, that we expect to result from increased recalls completion rates stemming from the public's enhanced ability to quickly locate important safety recall information on vehicles they drive.
Should this proposal be made final, we expect that all manufacturers regulated by NHTSA and currently subject to the defect and noncompliance reporting and notification requirements will continue to be subject to the updated requirements.
Today's proposed rule requiring manufacturers to notify their affected owners by electronic means in addition to first class mail notifications will add some paperwork burden to the industry. However, electronic methods such as email, social media accounts, over-the-air communications and others are existing technologies and largely free of charge.
Given the recent increase in the number of safety recalls the Agency administers yearly and the volume of products included in those recalls, this information collection burden hour total is increased from previous estimates. The Agency anticipates that each recall
Comments are invited on:
• Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Whether the Department's estimate for the burden of the information collection is accurate.
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn: NHTSA Desk Officer. PRA comments are due within 30 days following publication of this document in the
The Agency recognizes that the collection of information contained in today's proposed rule may be subject to revision in response to public comments.
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 577 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 30102, 30103, 30116-121, 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) In the case of a notification required to be sent by a motor vehicle manufacturer, by first class mail and by electronic means to each person who is registered under State law as the owner of the vehicle and whose name and address are reasonably ascertainable by the manufacturer through State records or other sources available to him. If the owner cannot be reasonably ascertained, the manufacturer shall notify the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer. The manufacturer shall also provide notification to each lessee of a leased motor vehicle that is covered by an agreement between the manufacturer and a lessor under which the manufacturer is to notify lessees directly of safety-related defects and noncompliances.
(ii) In the case of a notification required to be sent by a replacement equipment manufacturer—
(A) By first class mail and by electronic means to the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer, and
(B) (Except in the case of a tire) if decided by the Administrator to be required for motor vehicle safety, by public notice in such manner as the Administrator may require after consultation with the manufacturer.
(iii) In the case of a manufacturer required to provide notification concerning any defective or noncomplying tire, by first class or certified mail and by electronic means.
(iv) In the case of a notification to be sent by a lessor to a lessee of a leased motor vehicle, by first class mail and by electronic means to the most recent lessee known to the lessor. Such notification shall be sent within ten days of the lessor's receipt of the notification from the vehicle manufacturer.
(v) Notification by electronic means required by paragraph (a)(2) of this section is defined to include notification by electronic mail, text messages, radio or television notifications, vehicle infotainment console messages, over-the-air alerts, social media or targeted online campaigns, telephone calls, automated or otherwise, or other real time means. No matter the means identified by the manufacturer, the Administrator retains the discretion to require other means and additional notifications if the manufacturer's chosen means is impractical, does not feasibly reach all of the purchasers or owners impacted, or is otherwise deemed inappropriate. Any electronic notification issued under this paragraph must either comply with the content requirements of § 577.5(b) through (g) of this part, provide an internet hyperlink to a notice that complies with the content requirements of § 577.5(b) through (g), or provide an internet hyperlink to a representative copy of a notice that complies with the content requirements of § 577.5(b) through (g) along with instructions on how the purchaser or owner can determine whether his or her vehicle or equipment is impacted.
(vi) In the case of a notification by electronic means that may be viewed by more than one individual, manufacturers who are currently required to support NHTSA's VIN search tool and offer VIN-based safety recall search tools pursuant to existing regulation under this chapter, such notification must direct viewer to NHTSA's VIN search tool and the manufacturer's search tool.
(g) A follow-up notification shall be sent by first class mail and by electronic means pursuant to § 577.7(a)(2) of this part. Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the Administrator may authorize the use of other media besides first class mail and electronic means for a follow-up notification.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service plans to prepare an environmental impact statement to analyze the effects of a program to suppress populations of grasshoppers and Mormon cricket from 17 States in the western United States. This notice identifies potential issues and alternatives that will be studied in the environmental impact statement, and requests public comments to further delineate the scope of the alternatives and environmental impacts and issues.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 17, 2016.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For questions related to the Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program, contact Mr. William D. Wesela, APHIS National Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Program Manager,
About 400 species of grasshoppers inhabit the 17 western States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming) involved in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS') cooperative grasshopper suppression program, but only a small percentage are considered pest species. APHIS assists Federal land management agencies and State, county, and local governments during rangeland pest outbreaks. Grasshoppers and Mormon crickets (hereafter referred to collectively as grasshoppers) feed on and damage grasses and other vegetation, including some adjacent crops.
Rangeland in the western United States is a valuable agricultural resource for livestock production. Other economic benefits include energy production sites and recreation uses. Rangelands also provide numerous ecosystem benefits, such as protection of water and soil quality, nutrient cycling and serve as habitat for a variety of wildlife. Grasshoppers are natural components of this ecosystem; however, their populations can reach outbreak levels and cause serious economic losses to rangeland forage, especially when accompanied by a drought. A rapid and effective response is required when a grasshopper outbreak develops and threatens rangeland forage.
Currently, APHIS conducts surveys for grasshopper populations on rangeland in the western United States, provides technical assistance on grasshopper management to land owners/managers, and cooperatively suppresses grasshoppers when direct intervention is requested by a Federal land management agency or a State agriculture department and deemed necessary.
Under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C 4321
We are requesting public comment to help us identify or confirm potential alternatives and environmental issues that should be examined in the EIS, as well as comments that identify other issues that should be examined in the EIS.
The EIS will be prepared in accordance with: (1) NEPA, (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
We have identified three alternatives for further examination in the EIS:
We have identified the following potential environmental impacts or issues for further examination in the EIS:
• Effects on wildlife, including consideration of migratory bird species and changes in native wildlife habitat and populations, and federally listed endangered and threatened species.
• Effects on soil, air, and water quality.
• Effects on human health and safety.
• Effects on cultural and historic resources.
• Effects on economic resources.
All comments on this notice will be carefully considered in developing the final scope of the EIS. Upon completion of the draft EIS, a notice announcing its availability and an invitation to comment on it will be published in the
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Glenn and Colusa County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Willows, California. 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 on September 19, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the USDA Mendocino National Forest, Snow Mountain Conference Room, 825 North Humboldt Avenue, Willows, California.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Zachary Rich, Committee Coordinator by phone at 530-934-1259, or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss current or completed projects and present new projects for review.
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 September 12, 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 for oral comments must be sent to Zachary Rich, Committee Coordinator, USDA Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, 825 North Humboldt Avenue, Willows, California 95988; or by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Tehama County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Red Bluff, California. 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 meeting will be held on September 29, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Tehama County Farm Bureau, 275 Sale Lane, Red Bluff, California.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Randy Jero, Committee Coordinator by phone at 530-934-3316, or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss current or completed projects and present new projects for review.
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 September 23, 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 for oral comments must be sent to Randy Jero, Committee Coordinator, USDA Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, 825 North Humboldt Avenue, Willows, California 95988; or by email to
Gulf Island Shipyards, LLC (Gulf Island Shipyards) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities in Houma, Louisiana within FTZ 279. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on August 19, 2016.
The request indicates that a separate application for site designation at the Gulf Island Shipyards facilities will be submitted pursuant to Section 400.38 of the Board's regulations. The Gulf Island Shipyards facilities are used for the repair, maintenance and fabrication of tugs, barges, dredges, offshore drilling rigs and other vessels. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and 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 Gulf Island Shipyards from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Gulf Island Shipyards would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to: Cargo vessels; passenger vessels; tankers; refrigerated vessels; offshore service vessels; fishing vessels; tugs and pusher crafts; dredgers; offshore drilling or production platforms; floating docks and similar structures; lifeboats and military vessels; and, hulls (duty-free) for the foreign-status inputs noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Floor-bonding coats; epoxy resins; fittings; plastic floor coverings; boxes and crates; handles and knobs; gaskets; life jackets; insulation; plastic tiles; tableware; pipe fittings; flanges; metal elbows; metal sleeves; marine doors; steel wall panels; anchors; small steel drums; steel metadisc fasteners; steel washers; steel fasteners; ladders and raceways; wires; copper fittings; nuts; bolts; washers; screws; nickel fittings; aluminum rods, profiles and fittings; hangers; forgings; lead pipes and pipe fittings; zinc tubes, pipes and fittings; tin tubes, pipes and fittings; metal fittings; flexible tubing; boilers; steam turbines; turbine parts; marine inboard engines; diesel engines and parts; turbine jets; gas turbines; hydrojet engines; fuel oil pumps; cooling pumps; ballast pumps; macerator pumps; hydraulic pumps; bilge, sump and dredge pumps; jet pumps; air and liquid compressors; turbochargers; pumps and compressors; air conditioner units; HVAC units; refrigeration units; fire dampers; heat exchangers; cooling equipment; liquid purifying equipment; fuel filters; air filters; sprayers; winches; derricks; elevators; drilling risers; deck machinery; trash compactors; pressure valves; scupper valves; check valves; relief valves; gate valves; roller bearings; Z-drives; transmission shafts; housed bearings; gearboxes; pulleys; flywheels; clutches; universal joints; acoustic baffles; propellers and blades; AC and DC electric motors up to 746W; electric motors and generators (>750W); single-phase AC electric motors and generators; multi-phase AC electric motors and generators; AC motors and generators (750W-150kW); AC generators; generator sets; electrical ballasts; transformers; rectifiers; power supplies; inductors; starters; heaters; television reception equipment; radar equipment; radio remote control equipment; antennas; tuners; signaling devices; motor starters; switches; connectors; electrical terminals; switching equipment; electrical panels; arc lamps; signal generators; displays; coaxial cables; ignition wiring sets; electric conductors; mirrors; optical instruments; depth-sounding apparatus; micrometers; calipers; thermostats; voltage regulators; marine chronometers; helm chairs; table brackets and plates; seats and accessories; furniture; seat parts; and, searchlights (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 8.5%). The production activity under FTZ procedures would be subject to the “standard shipyard restriction” applicable to foreign origin steel mill
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 October 11, 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
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that certain amorphous silica fabric (silica fabric) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation is July 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. We invite interested parties to comment on this preliminary determination.
Effective September 1, 2016.
Scott Hoefke or Fred Baker, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4947 and (202) 482-2924, respectively.
The Department published the notice of initiation of this LTFV investigation on February 23, 2016.
The product covered by this investigation is silica fabric from the PRC. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department conducted this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We calculated constructed export prices in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is a non-market economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, we calculated normal value (NV) in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
On July 13, 2016, Petitioner filed a timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of silica fabric from the PRC.
In the
The preliminary weighted-average antidumping margins are as follows:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of silica fabric from the PRC as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of investigation was published. As described above, we preliminarily find that critical circumstances exist for imports produced or exported by all exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice. Accordingly, for ACIT, Nanjing Tianyuan, and the PRC-wide entity, in accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice. We will also instruct CBP, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), to require a cash deposit equal to the margins indicated in the chart above.
We will disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in this proceeding within five days of the date of announcement of this preliminary determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this proceeding.
Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must do so in writing within 30 days after the publication of this preliminary determination in the
Parties must file their case and rebuttal briefs, and any requests for a hearing, electronically using ACCESS.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination by the Department, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination by the Department, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On August 8, 2016, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), Petitioner and ACIT requested that the Department postpone its final determination. On August 9, 2016, Nanjing Tianyuan also requested that the Department postpone its final determination. In their respective requests for postponement, ACIT and Nanjing Tianyuan also requested that the Department extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii) and (e)(2), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The product covered by this investigation is woven (whether from yarns or rovings) industrial grade amorphous silica fabric, which contains a minimum of 90 percent silica (SiO2) by nominal weight, and a nominal width in excess of 8 inches. The investigation covers industrial grade amorphous silica fabric regardless of other materials contained in the fabric, regardless of whether in roll form or cut-to-length, regardless of weight, width (except as noted above), or length. The investigation covers industrial grade amorphous silica fabric regardless of whether the product is approved by a standards testing body (such as being Factory Mutual (FM) Approved), or regardless of whether it meets any governmental specification.
Industrial grade amorphous silica fabric may be produced in various colors. The investigation covers industrial grade amorphous silica fabric regardless of whether the fabric is colored. Industrial grade amorphous silica fabric may be coated or treated with materials that include, but are not limited to, oils, vermiculite, acrylic latex compound, silicone, aluminized polyester (Mylar®) film, pressure-sensitive adhesive, or other coatings and treatments. The investigation covers industrial grade amorphous silica fabric regardless of whether the fabric is coated or treated, and regardless of coating or treatment weight as a percentage of total product weight. Industrial grade amorphous silica fabric may be heat-cleaned. The investigation covers industrial grade amorphous silica fabric regardless of whether the fabric is heat-cleaned.
Industrial grade amorphous silica fabric may be imported in rolls or may be cut-to-length and then further fabricated to make welding curtains, welding blankets, welding pads, fire blankets, fire pads, or fire screens. Regardless of the name, all industrial grade amorphous silica fabric that has been further cut-to-length or cut-to-width or further finished by finishing the edges and/or adding grommets, is included within the scope of this investigation.
Subject merchandise also includes (1) any industrial grade amorphous silica fabric that has been converted into industrial grade amorphous silica fabric in China from fiberglass cloth produced in a third country; and (2) any industrial grade amorphous silica fabric that has been further processed in a third country prior to export to the United States, including but not limited to treating, coating, slitting, cutting to length, cutting to width, finishing the edges, adding grommets, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope industrial grade amorphous silica fabric.
Excluded from the scope of the investigation is amorphous silica fabric that is subjected to controlled shrinkage, which is also called “pre-shrunk” or “aerospace grade” amorphous silica fabric. In order to be excluded as a pre-shrunk or aerospace grade amorphous silica fabric, the amorphous silica fabric must meet the following exclusion criteria: (l) The amorphous silica fabric must contain a minimum of 98 percent silica (SiO2) by nominal weight; (2) the amorphous silica fabric must have an areal shrinkage of 4 percent or less; (3) the amorphous silica fabric must contain no coatings or treatments; and (4) the amorphous silica fabric must be white in color. For purposes of this scope, “areal shrinkage” refers to the extent to which a specimen of amorphous silica fabric shrinks while subjected to heating at 1800 degrees F for 30 minutes.
Also excluded from the scope are amorphous silica fabric rope and tubing (or sleeving). Amorphous silica fabric rope is a knitted or braided product made from amorphous silica yarns. Silica tubing (or sleeving) is braided into a hollow sleeve from amorphous silica yarns.
The subject imports are normally classified in subheadings 7019.59.4021, 7019.59.4096, 7019.59.9021, and 7019.59.9096 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), but may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7019.40.4030, 7019.40.4060, 7019.40.9030, 7019.40.9060, 7019.51.9010, 7019.51.9090, 7019.52.9010, 7019.52.9021, 7019.52.9096 and 7019.90.1000. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is automatically initiating the five-year review (“Sunset Review”) of the antidumping and countervailing duty (“AD/CVD”) order(s) listed below. The International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of
The Department official identified in the
The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty order(s):
As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Department's regulations, the Department's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on the Department's Web site at the following address: “
This notice serves as a reminder that any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
On April 10, 2013, the Department modified two regulations related to AD/CVD proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the Department will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.
Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the
Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the
If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide that
This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).
Notice of Issuance of an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to DFA of California (“DFA”), Application No. 14-3A004.
The Secretary of Commerce, through the Office of Trade and Economic Analysis (“OTEA”), issued an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to DFA of California (“DFA”) on August 8, 2016.
Joseph E. Flynn, Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, by telephone at (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2016).
OTEA is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the
DFA's Export Trade Certificate of Review has been amended to make the following changes to the list of Members covered by the Certificate:
1. Change the name of existing Member Diamond Foods, Inc. to Diamond Foods, LLC.
The Members covered by the amended Export Trade Certificate of Review are listed below:
No change has been made regarding the Export Trade, Export Trade Activities or Methods of Operation covered by the Certificate.
The amended Certificate of Review is effective from May 9, 2016, the date on which the application for an amendment was deemed submitted.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council, NEFMC) will hold a three-day meeting to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, September 20, 21, and 22, 2016. It will start at 9 a.m. on September 20; 8:30 a.m. on September 21; and at 8:30 a.m. on September 22, 2016.
The meeting will be held at the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel, 50 Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA 01923; telephone: (978) 777-2500; online at
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492, ext. 113.
After introductions and brief announcements, the meeting will begin with the swearing-in of new and reappointed Council members, followed by the annual election of officers. Next, the Council will receive reports from its Chairman and Executive Director, NMFS's Regional Administrator for the Greater Atlantic Regional Office (GARFO), liaisons from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, representatives from NOAA General Counsel and the Office of Law Enforcement, and staff from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the U.S Coast Guard. Following these reports, the Council will receive a presentation from the NMFS Highly Migratory Species (HMS) staff on Draft Amendment 10 to the Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which addresses habitat revisions.
After a lunch break, members of the public will be able to speak during an open comment period on issues that relate to Council business but are not included on the published agenda for this meeting. Next, the Whiting Plan Development Team (PDT) will present the 2015 Annual Monitoring Report for the small-mesh multispecies fishery, which includes red, silver, and offshore hakes. Based on the contents of this report, the Council may, if necessary, initiate a framework adjustment to modify accountability measures (AMs) in the fishery. The Council then will receive an update from its Atlantic Herring Committee about two actions that are under development: (1) Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring FMP, which is considering acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rules for the fishery under a management strategy evaluation (MSE) process and measures to address localized depletion; and (2) Framework Adjustment 5 to potentially modify haddock bycatch AMs in the herring midwater trawl fishery. The Council will close out the day with a report from the GARFO staff about its electronic monitoring (EM) pilot project on Atlantic herring and mackerel midwater trawl vessels to test the utility of EM for future programs.
The second day of the meeting will begin with a report from the Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee (TRAC) with results from the 2016 stock assessments for Eastern Georges Bank cod, Eastern Georges Bank haddock, and Georges Bank yellowtail flounder. The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will report next with ABC recommendations for Georges Bank yellowtail flounder, monkfish, and deep-sea red crab. Following the SSC report, the Council will hear from U.S. representatives to the Transboundary Management Guidance Committee (TMGC) and potentially approve TMGC recommendations for 2017 total allowable catches (TACs) for U.S./Canada shared stocks on Georges Bank. Next, the Council will go into its Groundfish Committee report, where it is scheduled to approve a range of alternatives for Framework Adjustment 56, including: (1) 2017 U.S./Canada specifications; (2) 2017-19 witch flounder specifications; and (3) commercial and recreational management measures for groundfish. More specifically, the management measures under consideration include: (a) Establishment of a sub-annual catch limit (sub-ACL) for northern windowpane flounder for the scallop fishery; (b) a potential increase to the sub-ACL for Georges Bank haddock for the Atlantic herring midwater trawl fishery; (c) revisions to the process for determining recreational management measures; and (d) potential modifications to Atlantic halibut measures. Finally, the Council will receive a briefing on the PDT's Groundfish Monitoring White Paper.
The Council will take a lunch break and, if necessary, conclude any unfinished groundfish business immediately following lunch. Then it will receive a report from its Monkfish Committee, which will include an update on fishing year 2017-19 specifications and potentially lead to the initiation of a framework adjustment if the Council determines that additional management measures are warranted. Closing out the day, the Council will receive an Atlantic deep-sea red crab report and take final action on 2017-19 specifications for the fishery.
The final meeting day will begin with a preliminary discussion of 2017 Council priorities. Here, the Council will review and discuss a draft list of possible actions and tasks for further development in 2017 covering all committees. The Council will not take final action on priorities until its November meeting. Next, the Council will receive an update from its Habitat Committee on the development of two actions: (1) The Omnibus Deep-Sea Coral Amendment; and (2) a Clam Dredge Framework Adjustment. The Council will hear about ongoing analyses for both actions and provide recommendations for further work. It also will review and possibly approve minor adjustments to the range of alternatives in the coral amendment. The Scallop Committee will report next with an update on Framework Adjustment 28 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP. The framework includes: (1) Specifications for fishing year 2017 with default measures for 2018; (2) a measure to potentially restrict the possession of shell stock inshore of the days-at-sea demarcation line north of 42°20′ N.; (3) modifications to the process for setting scallop fishery annual catch limits; and (4) modifications to the Closed Area I Scallop Access Area boundary to be consistent with potential changes to habitat and groundfish mortality closed areas. More specifically, the 2017 specifications and 2018 default measures include: (a) Setting ABCs, ACLs, days-at-sea, and access-area allocations for both limited access (LA) and limited access general category (LAGC) vessels; (b) determining the hard TAC for the Northern Gulf of Maine Management Area; (c) setting the target TAC for the LAGC incidental catch; and (d) specifying set-aside amounts for the scallop observer and research set-aside programs.
Following a lunch break, the Scallop Committee discussion may resume to conclude any unfinished business before the Council begins its Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management (EBFM) session. Here, the Council will receive a draft report from the EBFM PDT on a Georges Bank operating model to support the development of an example Fishery Ecosystem Plan and Management Strategy Evaluation. The Council will provide further guidance to the PDT and the EBFM Committee for additional work. Next, the Council will develop comments for NMFS on its EBFM road map. Finally, the meeting will conclude with a discussion of items under “other business.”
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee will hold a public meeting.
The meeting will be held Friday, September 16, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.
The meeting will be held via webinar:
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's Web site,
The MAFMC's Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee will hold a public meeting to review 2017 specifications and management measures and make any appropriate recommendations. Spiny dogfish is in multi-year specifications for 2016-18 but the specifications are reviewed annually. Public comment will be taken.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) previously collected survey data in 2007 and 2012 for conducting economic analyses of marine sport fishing in Alaska. These surveys were necessary to understand the factors that affect the economic value of marine recreational fishing trips and improve estimates of fishing trip values that can aid fishery managers evaluate management options pertaining to sport fisheries. The proposed survey is an update of the previously conducted surveys and is needed to improve estimates of fishing trip values potentially affected by recent changes in federal recreational fisheries off Alaska, most notably the Halibut Catch Sharing Plan (76 FR 44156) which went into effect in 2014 for the Pacific halibut fishery. Several questions in the survey have been updated to better reflect these recent fishery management changes.
The Federal Government is responsible for the management of the Pacific halibut sport fishery off Alaska, while the State of Alaska manages the salmon sport fisheries (Chinook, coho, sockeye, chum, and pink), as well as several other saltwater sport fisheries. The updated survey's scope covers marine sport fishing for Pacific halibut, salmon, and other popular marine sport species in Alaska (
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of initiation of 5-year review; request for information.
We, NMFS, announce a 5-year review of the Mediterranean monk seal (
To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we must receive your information no later than October 31, 2016. However, we will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time.
You may submit information on this document identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0104 by either of the following methods:
•
• Mail or hand-deliver written comments to Brendan Newell, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Brendan Newell, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-7710.
Under the ESA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains a list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plant species at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals) and § 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every five years. On the basis of such reviews under section 4(c)(2)(B), we determine whether or not any species should be delisted or reclassified from endangered to threatened or from threatened to endangered. Delisting a species must be supported by the best scientific and commercial data available and only considered if such data substantiates that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is considered extinct; (2) the species is considered to be recovered; and/or (3) the original data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such data, were in error. Any change in Federal classification would require a separate rulemaking process. The regulations in 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the
Background information on Mediterranean monk seals including the endangered listing is available on the NMFS Office of Protected Species Web site at:
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires that we determine whether a species is endangered or threatened based on one or more of the five following factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Section 4(b) also requires that our determination be made on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available after taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, to protect such species.
To ensure that the 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting new information from the public, governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, environmental entities, and any other interested parties concerning the status of Mediterranean monk seals. The 5-year review considers the best scientific and commercial data and all new information that has become available since the listing determination or most recent status review. Categories of requested information include: (1) Species biology including, but not limited to, population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics; (2) habitat conditions including, but not limited to, amount, distribution, and important features for conservation; (3) status and trends of threats; (4) conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species, including monitoring data demonstrating effectiveness of such measures; (5) need for additional conservation measures; and (6) other new information, data, or corrections including, but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the list of endangered and threatened species, and improved analytical methods for evaluating extinction risk.
If you wish to provide information for this 5-year review, you may submit your information and materials electronically or via mail (see
16 U.S.C. 1531
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 31, 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 US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Casey Building, 8801 Telegraph Road, Alexandria VA 22315, ATTN Meredith Bridgers or call 703-428-8458.
Respondents are public visitors to US Army Corps of Engineers Recreation Areas. Visitors exiting the recreation area by vehicle are stopped as potential respondents. Participation is voluntary. Respondents are asked questions in the following categories; characteristics of visit, quantity of people in the vehicle, description of overnight stay, activity participation, demographics, willingness to participate in follow-up web survey. The follow-up web survey asks questions in the following categories; total party size, trip frequency, activity equipment characteristics. Appropriate disclosures (Privacy Act Statement) may be provided to the respondent visually (in writing on paper) or orally (in spoken word by a USACE employee or representative).
National Defense University, DoD.
Notice of open meeting.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the National Defense University Board of Visitors (BOV) will take place.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, September 29, 2016 from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. and will continue on Friday, September 30, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
The Board of Visitors meeting will be held at Marshall Hall, Building 62, Room 155B, the National Defense University, 300 5th Avenue SW., Fort McNair, Washington, DC 20319-5066.
The point of contact for this notice of open meeting is Ms. Joycelyn Stevens at (202) 685-0079, Fax (202) 685-3920 or
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. The future agenda will include discussion on accreditation compliance, organizational management, strategic planning, resource management, and other matters of interest to the National Defense University. Limited space made available for observers will be allocated on a first come, first served basis. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, written statements to the committee may be submitted to the committee at any time or in response to a stated planned meeting agenda by FAX or email to the point of contact person listed in
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The invention listed below is assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy. The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Microsphere Material Solutions, LLC., a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license to practice in the United States, the
U.S. PATENT 9,102,087 (Navy Case 103037): Issued August 11, 2015, entitled “FOAMS MADE OF AMORPHOUS HOLLOW SPHERES AND THE MANUFACTURE THEREOF”.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than September 16, 2016.
Written objections are to be filed with Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg. 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001.
Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001, telephone 812-854-4100.
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.
Department of Education (ED), Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 3, 2016.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Ivy Morgan, 202-401-7767.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Department of Education (ED), Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD)
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 3, 2016.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Joanne Bogart, 202-205-7855.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Fuel Cycle Technologies, Office of Nuclear Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of public meeting.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is designing a consent-based process for siting facilities that will be a part of an integrated waste management system to transport, store, and dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. As part of this process, the Department issued an Invitation for Public Comment in the
The meeting will take place on Thursday September 15, 2016 from 2:00-4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Department officials will be available to discuss consent-based siting during an informal open house 30 minutes before and after the formal meeting.
The meeting will be held at the Embassy Suites by Hilton Washington DC Convention Center, 900 10th St NW., Washington, DC 20001. To register for this meeting and to review the agenda for this meeting, please visit
Requests for further information should be sent to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of public comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a 60-day public comment period for the draft IRIS Toxicological Review of ETBE. The draft document was prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD).
As outlined in the May 21, 2009, IRIS process under step 4, EPA is releasing this draft IRIS assessment for public comment and discussion at the October 26, 2016, IRIS Public Science Meeting. This draft assessment is not final, as described in EPA's information quality guidelines, and it does not represent, and should not be construed to represent Agency policy or views. EPA will consider all public comments submitted in response to this notice when revising this document.
The 60-day public comment period begins September 1, 2016, and ends October 31, 2016. Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2016.
The draft IRIS Toxicological Review of ETBE will be available via the internet on EPA's IRIS Web page under Recent Additions at
For information on the public comment period, contact the ORD Docket at the EPA Headquarters Docket Center; telephone: 202-566-1752; facsimile: 202-566-9744; or email:
For technical information on the draft IRIS assessment ETBE, contact Dr. Keith Salazar, NCEA; telephone: 703-347-0278; or email:
EPA's IRIS Program is a human health assessment program that evaluates quantitative and qualitative risk information on effects that may result from exposure to chemicals found in the environment. Through the IRIS Program, EPA provides the highest quality science-based human health assessments to support the Agency's regulatory activities and decisions to protect public health. The IRIS database contains information on chemicals that can be used to support the first two steps (hazard identification and dose-response evaluation) of the human health risk assessment process. When supported by available data, IRIS provides health effects information and toxicity values for health effects (including cancer and effects other than cancer). Government and others combine IRIS toxicity values with exposure information to characterize public health risks of chemicals; this information is then used to support risk management decisions designed to protect public health.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0229, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744. Deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies.
Farm Credit Administration.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).
Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.
Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090. Submit attendance requests via email to
Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. Please send an email to
* Session Closed-Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552b(c)(8) and (9).
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of an existing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. On June 10, 2016, (81 FR 37665), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Board) and the FDIC requested comment for 60 days on a proposal to renew the information collection described below. No comments were received. The FDIC hereby gives notice of its plan to submit to OMB a request to approve the renewal of this collection, and again invites comment on this renewal.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 3, 2016.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Manny Cabeza, at the FDIC address above.
Proposal to renew the following currently-approved collection of information:
To accomplish the registration of transfer agents, Form TA-1 was developed in 1975 as an interagency effort by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the agencies. The agencies primarily use the data collected on Form TA-1 to determine whether an application for registration should be approved, denied, accelerated or postponed, and they use the data in connection with their supervisory responsibilities.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 29, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can also be sent electronically to
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than September 16, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 26, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is soliciting nominations for possible membership on the ACD, CDC-HDS. This subcommittee consists of up to 16 experts in fields related to health policy, public health, global health, preparedness, preventive medicine, the faith-based and community-based sector, and allied fields who are selected by the CDC. The HDS provides interdisciplinary perspectives and subject matter expertise to the goal of reducing health disparities which may include research, program and policy analyses, and other developmental activities for the ACD, CDC on CDC's efforts to address health disparities which is integral to achieving the agency's overarching health impact goals. Specifically, the HDS will submit work products to the ACD, CDC for deliberation, discussion, and decision.
Nominations are being sought for individuals who have expertise and qualifications necessary to contribute to the accomplishment of the subcommittee's mission. Nominees will be selected by the Designated Federal Officer of the ACD, CDC. Members may be invited to serve for terms of up to three years.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy stipulates that committee membership shall be balanced in terms of professional training and background, points of view represented, and the committee's function. Appointments shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on federal workgroups or prior experience serving on a federal advisory committee does not disqualify a candidate; however, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships. Subcommittee members are Special Government Employees, requiring the filing of financial disclosure reports at the beginning and annually during their terms.
Note that the need for different expertise varies from year to year and a candidate who is not selected in one year may be reconsidered in a subsequent year.
Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Candidates should submit the following items:
Current curriculum vitae, including complete contact information (telephone numbers, mailing address, email address).
At least one letter of recommendation from person(s) not employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Candidates may submit letter(s) from current HHS employees if they wish, but at least one letter must be submitted by a person
Nomination materials must be date stamped by midnight on September 30, 2016 and sent to:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Office of Head Start (OHS), Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, Public Law 110-134, notice is hereby given of a 1-day Tribal Consultation Session to be held between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families, OHS leadership and the leadership of Tribal Governments operating Head Start (including Early Head Start) programs. The purpose of these Consultation Sessions is to discuss ways to better meet the needs of American Indian and Alaska Native children and their families, taking into consideration funding allocations, distribution formulas, and other issues affecting the delivery of Head Start services in their geographic locations [42 U.S.C. 9835, Section 640(l)(4)].
October 19, 2016, from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
ThrivAlaska Head Start Center at 1949 Gilliam Way, Fairbanks, Alaska 99701.
Angie Godfrey, Regional Program Manager, Region XI AI/AN, OHS, email
HHS announces OHS Tribal Consultations for leaders of Tribal Governments operating Head Start and Early Head Start programs. The agenda for the scheduled OHS Tribal Consultations in Fairbanks, Alaska, will be organized around the statutory purposes of Head Start Tribal Consultations related to meeting the needs of American Indian and Alaska Native children and families, taking into consideration funding allocations, distribution formulas, and other issues affecting the delivery of Head Start services in that geographic location. In addition, OHS will share actions taken and in progress to address the issues and concerns raised in the 2016 OHS Tribal Consultation.
The Consultation Session will be conducted with elected or appointed leaders of Tribal Governments and their designated representatives [42 U.S.C. 9835, Section 640(l)(4)(A)]. Designees must have a letter from the Tribal Government authorizing them to represent the tribe. Tribal Governments must submit the designee letter at least 3 days in advance of the Consultation Session to Angie Godfrey at
A detailed report of the Consultation Session will be prepared and made available within 45 days of the Consultation Session to all Tribal Governments receiving funds for Head Start and Early Head Start programs. Tribes wishing to submit written testimony for the report should send testimony to Angie Godfrey at
Office of Refugee Resettlement, ACF, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), published a document in the
Colleen Mahar-Piersma, Program Analyst, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Mary E. Switzer Building, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: 202-205-5266; Email:
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; renewal of advisory committee.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the renewal of the Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has determined that it is in the public interest to renew the Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee for an additional 2 years beyond the charter expiration date. The new charter will be in effect until August 27, 2018.
Authority for the Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee will expire on August 27, 2016, unless the Commissioner formally determines that renewal is in the public interest.
Jennifer Shepherd, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to 45 CFR part 11 and by the General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the renewal of the Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee is a discretionary Federal advisory committee established to provide advice to the Commissioner. The Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging responsibilities as they relate to helping to ensure safe and effective drugs for human use and, as required, any other product for which the Food and Drug Administration has regulatory responsibility.
The Committee reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of cardiovascular and renal disorders and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
The Committee shall consist of a core of 11 voting members including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the fields of cardiology, hypertension, arrhythmia, angina, congestive heart failure, diuresis, and biostatistics. Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to four years. Almost all non-Federal members of this committee serve as Special Government Employees. The core of voting members may include one technically qualified member, selected by the Commissioner or designee, who is identified with consumer interests and is recommended by either a consortium of consumer-oriented organizations or other interested persons. In addition to the voting members, the Committee may include one non-voting member who is identified with industry interests.
Further information regarding the most recent charter and other information can be found at
This document is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory committees, please visit us at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public workshop entitled “The Sentinel Post-Licensure Rapid Immunization Safety Monitoring (PRISM) Program.” The purpose of the workshop is to describe the Sentinel Initiative and PRISM program, illustrate how PRISM is used by FDA for regulatory responsibilities (including how it has been integrated into FDA's regulatory review process and case examples), and discuss the future direction of PRISM in terms of expansion and further integration into the regulatory review process.
The public workshop will be held on December 7, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. See the
The public workshop will be held at the National Institutes of Health, 8600 Rockville Pike, Lister Hill Center Auditorium, Building 38A, Bethesda, MD 20894.
Chris Nguyen, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 4124, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or Cynthia Whitmarsh, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 4122, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002: For questions, email:
The Sentinel Initiative is FDA's national electronic surveillance system for the post-market safety monitoring of medical products. The Sentinel System was implemented as an Active Post-Market Risk Identification and Analysis program in response to section 905 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. PRISM was initiated in 2009 as one of several national vaccine safety surveillance systems deployed during the H1N1 influenza pandemic. PRISM was integrated into the FDA Sentinel Initiative in September 2010. PRISM has been used on multiple occasions to evaluate for vaccine-adverse events, such as the risk of intussusception following rotavirus vaccination, and the risk of febrile seizure among children receiving the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine.
The PRISM distributed database covers more than 171 million individuals in a number of data partner organizations. The database is enhanced by linkages to State-wide registries and birth registries. PRISM is being used to develop broad-based signal detection tools that can be used to further evaluate vaccine safety. There are currently several active vaccine protocol-based assessments underway. More information can be found at:
The workshop will bring together other government agencies, academia, industry, and other stakeholder participants involved in vaccine development and safety. The goal of the workshop is to present and discuss the current capabilities of PRISM. Topics include: (1) The available data infrastructure, (2) methods, and (3) tools. In addition, a few representative examples of PRISM studies will be presented to demonstrate the program's success in safety signal refinement and evaluation and informing the regulatory process. There will also be a discussion of possible future directions for PRISM.
If you need special accommodations because of disability, please contact Chris Nguyen (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Microbiology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held on October 5, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Gaithersburg Holiday Inn, Ballroom, Two Montgomery Village Ave., Gaithersburg, MD 20879. The hotel's telephone number is 301-948-8900. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Aden Asefa, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2648, Silver Spring, MD 20993,
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document. The docket number is FDA-2016-N-1660. The docket will close on November 9, 2016. Comments received on or before September 21, 2016, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by the Agency.
For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Artair Mallett at
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; renewal of advisory committee.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the renewal of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has determined that it is in the public interest to renew the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee for an additional 2 years beyond the charter expiration date. The new charter will be in effect until August 27, 2018.
Authority for the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee will expire on August 27, 2016, unless the Commissioner formally determines that renewal is in the public interest.
LaToya Bonner, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001,
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to 45 CFR part 11 and by the General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the renewal of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee is a discretionary Federal advisory committee established to provide advice to the Commissioner. The Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging responsibilities as they relate to helping to ensure safe and effective drugs for human use and, as required, any other product for which FDA has regulatory responsibility.
The Committee reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of endocrine and metabolic disorders, and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
The Committee shall consist of a core of 11 voting members including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the fields of endocrinology, metabolism, epidemiology or statistics, and related specialties. Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4 years. Almost all non-Federal members of this committee serve as Special Government Employees. The core of voting members may include one technically qualified member, selected by the Commissioner or designee, who is identified with consumer interests and is recommended by either a consortium of consumer-oriented organizations or other interested persons. In addition to the voting members, the Committee may include one non-voting member who is identified with industry interests.
Further information regarding the most recent charter and other information can be found at
This document is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory committees, please visit us at
The Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of Public Health Support (OPHS), Division of Planning, Evaluation and Research (DPER), is accepting applications for one new cooperative agreement for the National Native Health Research Training Initiative. This initiative will help build capacity and disseminate new and best practices for American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) health research and promote Tribally-driven research activity through a variety of educational and training opportunities. Focus will be on the promotion of health research and related opportunities for AI/AN students, highlighting promising practices and practice-based approaches to improving the health of AI/AN people, and culture-based approaches to reducing health disparities between AI/AN people and the U.S. population. Other areas will focus on resilience and protective factors and their role in AI/AN health outcomes, innovative and culturally-based approaches to improving the health of AI/AN youth, and dissemination of study findings in AI/AN health science research to investigators and providers working in or with Tribal communities as well as Tribal leaders and health officials. Activities will include the planning, coordination, and hosting of research meetings and conferences, webinars, hosting of a Web site/Web page for dissemination of AI/AN health science research information, and other activities to be determined. This IHS activity is authorized under the Snyder Act, codified at 25 U.S.C. 13; the Transfer Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 2001; the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, Public Law 112-74 and the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013, Public Law 112-175. This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 93.933.
The AI/AN populations have long experienced poorer health status compared to other Americans. Although major gains in reducing health disparities were made during the last half of the twentieth century, most gains stopped by the mid-1980s (Trends in Indian Health 1998-99) and a few diseases,
Additional factors known to contribute to health status and disparities include:
1. Family, home, and work environments;
2. general or culturally specific health practices;
3. social support systems;
4. lack of access to culturally-appropriate health care; and
5. attitudes and beliefs about health.
Health disparities of AI/ANs may also reflect a lack of in depth research relevant to improving their health status. Many AI/ANs also distrust research for historical reasons. One approach that combats this distrust is to ensure that Tribes are managing partners in training and research that involves them, as for example in community-based participatory research (CBPR) (
DPER has the responsibility of promoting health research to help improve the health status of AI/ANs. The development of AI/AN scientists and scientist-practitioners and enhancing the ability of Tribes to participate in and initiate their own research projects is a key part of improving quality and delivery of health services. Scientific meetings, conferences, and other training opportunities will support AI/AN faculty and student development and promote participatory collaboration between Tribes and the academic community. Such meetings and other
A. To increase opportunities for AI/AN scientists and health professionals—Offering development and training opportunities to AI/AN scientists, students, and health professionals and to provide a means for the dissemination of biomedical, clinical, behavioral and health science research that is responsive to the needs of the AI/AN community and the goals of this initiative. The grantee will develop regular (at least annual) conference training and practice sharing opportunities for scientists, students, and health professionals to learn and share findings from scientifically meritorious research projects as well as exploration of methods for further study and evaluation of practice-based projects. The grantee will also support health science education and professional development projects designed to introduce and further develop research skills of AI/AN students, faculty, health professionals, and community members.
B. To enhance Tribal-academic collaborations and improve the ability of Tribes to utilize research findings—Recent CBPR projects suggests that AI/AN communities can work collaboratively with health researchers to further the research needs of AI/ANs. Fully utilizing all cultural and scientific knowledge, strengths, and competencies, such partnerships can lead to better understanding of the biological, genetic, behavioral, psychological, cultural, social, and economic factors affecting health status of AI/ANs and support the development and evaluation of interventions to improve their health status. The grantee will develop training opportunities to inform and educate Tribal leaders and health personnel about health research methods, findings, and best practices in partnering with academic investigators in pursuit of research projects designed to meet the needs and advance the health care of AI/AN communities.
C. To reduce health disparities—Research suggests that enhancing protective factors can be as effective as reducing risk factors in improving health outcomes, particularly among AI/ANs. A better understanding of protective factors among AI/ANs could be helpful in reducing health disparities. Anecdotal evidence suggests that AI/AN ceremonial and other cultural practices may help to ameliorate major harms and disruptions over the centuries. The grantee will promote health research methods designed to better understand the protective effects of Traditional Indian Medicine, Indigenous Knowledge, Traditional Ecological Knowledge, et al., on AI/AN health. The grantee will also identify and disseminate examples of successful co-delivery of Traditional cultural practices with western biomedical services.
The annual conference will provide critical exposure to health research opportunities for both students and researchers. The applicant must provide opportunities for potential and new AI/AN students to learn the fundamentals of health research, provide exposure to cutting-edge research, and interaction with established AI/AN scientists to explore mentorship and funding opportunities. Mentorship is vital to success in the research field, especially for AIAN students, and mentorship is often not available at the geographic location where the student is enrolled. Therefore it is paramount that this opportunity occurs at least annually. New scientific research funding opportunities that become available will be explored and wide dissemination of this information will be given to Tribes, Tribal organizations, and Tribal-academic partnerships so they will have the opportunity to apply for this kind of funding.
The purpose of this cooperative agreement is to fund a national membership organization of AI/AN scientists and/or researchers and students to further the IHS research program objectives with expanded outreach and education efforts for AI/AN students, faculty, and health professionals. This announcement requests applications to propose activities including, but not limited to, an annual national training opportunity in health research methods and findings of importance to AI/AN people and communities. Other activities may also be considered in coordination with the main annual event. This is an important annual event that will bring together health researchers and key stakeholders to share recent research findings, learn new research methodologies and best practices in service delivery, and learn about human research protections and opportunities for research funding. The annual research training event will be the primary event for AI/AN researchers and students to present their findings and obtain feedback from other researchers as well as Tribal health professionals. Students also have the opportunity to select and begin working with new mentors. This event will be held by a national membership organization of AI/AN scientists and/or researchers in collaboration with IHS in facilitating a forum designed to improve the health research capacity of AI/AN Tribes and researchers. The organization and continuity of annual national training events is vital to the morale of the health research and larger health professional field working for the benefit of the Tribes and other (including urban) AI/AN people.
The awardee is required to comply with the “HHS Policy on Promoting Efficient Spending: Use of Appropriated Funds for Conferences and Meeting Space, Food, Promotional Items, and Printing and Publications,” dated December 16, 2013 (“Policy”), as applicable to conferences funded by grants and cooperative agreements. The Policy is available at
The awardee is required to:
Provide a separate detailed budget justification and narrative for each conference anticipated. The cost categories to be addressed are as follows: (1) Contract/Planner, (2) Meeting Space/Venue, (3) Registration Web site, (4) Audio Visual, (5) Speakers Fees, (6) Non-Federal Attendee Travel, (7) Registration Fees, (8) Other (explain in detail and cost breakdown). For additional questions please contact Mose Herne on (301) 443-1549 or email him at
Cooperative Agreement.
The total amount of funding identified for the current fiscal year (FY) 2017 is approximately $225,000. The award amount is anticipated to be between $100,000 and $225,000. The amount of funding available for competing and continuation awards issued under this announcement are subject to the availability of appropriations and budgetary priorities of the Agency. The IHS is under no obligation to make awards that are selected for funding under this announcement.
One award will be issued under this program announcement.
The project period is for five years and will run consecutively from November 15, 2016 to November 14, 2021.
Cooperative agreements awarded by the HHS are administered under the same policies as a grant. However, the funding agency (IHS) is required to have substantial programmatic involvement in the project during the entire award segment. Below is a detailed description of the level of involvement required for both IHS and the grantee. IHS will be responsible for activities listed under section A and the grantee will be responsible for activities listed under section B as stated:
The IHS assigned program official will monitor the overall progress of the awardee's execution of the requirements of the award as well as their adherence to the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreements. This includes providing guidance for required reports, development of agendas, tools and other products, and technical assistance with evaluation and overcoming any performance issues encountered. The IHS assigned program official must approve all presentations, electronic content, and other materials, including mass emails, developed by awardee pursuant to these awards and any supplemental awards prior to the presentation or dissemination of such materials to any party.
IHS staff will provide support for the award as follows:
i. The IHS assigned program official will work in partnership with the awardee in all decisions involving strategy, hiring of grantee personnel, deployment of resources, release of public information materials, quality assurance, coordination of activities, any training, reports, budget, and evaluation. Collaboration includes agenda setting, analysis, and reporting.
ii. The IHS assigned program official will work closely with all participating IHS health services/programs, as appropriate, to coordinate award activities.
iii. The IHS assigned program official will coordinate the following:
• Discussion and release of any and all special grant conditions upon fulfillment.
• Monthly scheduled conference calls.
• Appropriate dissemination of required reports to each participating program.
iv. The IHS will, jointly with the awardee, plan and set an agenda for each of the conference(s) mentioned in this announcement that:
• Shares the training and/or accomplishments.
• Fosters collaboration amongst the participating program offices, agencies, and/or departments.
• Increases visibility for the partnership between the awardee and the IHS.
v. IHS will provide guidance in addressing deliverables and requirements.
vi. IHS will provide guidance in preparing articles for publication and/or presentations of program successes, lessons learned, and new findings.
vii. IHS will communicate via monthly conference calls, individual or collective site visits, and meetings.
viii. IHS will provide technical assistance to the entity as requested.
ix. IHS staff may, at the request of the entity's board, participate on committees and may recommend topics for discussion.
The awardee is responsible for the following:
i. To succinctly and independently address the requirements for the award.
ii. To facilitate a forum or forums at which concerns can be heard that are representative of Tribal governments in the area of health research.
iii. To establish relationships with other national Indian organizations, with professional groups, and with Federal, State, and local entities and universities or medical centers supportive of AI/AN health research programs.
iv. To improve and expand access for AI/AN Tribal governments to health research programs within HHS.
v. To disseminate timely health research information to Tribal governments, AI/AN health boards, other national Indian organizations, professional groups, Federal, State, and local entities.
vi. To reach out to and educate academic and research institutions, and Federal, state and local agencies on the needs and procedures for the conduct of health research in Indian Country, and to promote the academic recognition of the rights of Tribal governments to control their own research and to own their research data.
vii. To establish an appropriate standard of practice for health research concerning AI/AN that addresses the relationship between academic freedom, government procedures, and Tribal rights.
viii. Attendance at regularly scheduled meetings between awardee and the IHS assigned program official, evidenced by meeting minutes which highlight the awardee's specific involvement and participation.
ix. The annual national research conference and other training activities as proposed by the grantee and approved by the program official.
x. Copies of all promotional and educational materials provided to Tribal programs and other projects (electronic form and one hard copy).
xi. Copies of all promotional materials provided to media and other outlets (electronic form and one hard copy).
xii. Copies of all articles published (electronic form and one hard copy).
xiii. Evidence of posting of conference and training-related information on organizational Web site(s).
xiv. Workshops
• The awardee may provide teleconference and/or webinar workshops on health research, subject to approval from the IHS assigned program official.
• The awardee shall conduct workshops and/or presentations including, but not limited to, challenges, potential solutions, and successes in the form of promising practices of health research at one national conference (venue and content of presentations to be agreed upon by the awardee and the IHS assigned program official).
To be eligible for this “New Competition” under this announcement, an applicant must:
• Be 501(c)(3) non-profit entities that are national membership organizations of AI/AN health researchers or scientists.
Organizations claiming non-profit status must submit a copy of the 501(c)(3) Certificate with your application submission by the Application Deadline Date listed under Key Dates on page one of this announcement.
• Demonstrate organizational expertise and successful experience in:
○ Conducting previous national research or scientific conferences.
○ Promoting and supporting AI/AN health research and science education and training.
○ Providing evidence of at least five years of successful experience providing health research and science education and outreach on a national scale.
Please refer to Section IV.2 (Application and Submission Information/Subsection 2, Content and Form of Application Submission) for additional proof of applicant status documents required such as Tribal resolutions, proof of non-profit status, etc.
The IHS does not require matching funds or cost sharing for grants or cooperative agreements.
If application budgets exceed the highest dollar amount outlined under the “Estimated Funds Available” section within this funding announcement, the application will be considered ineligible and will not be reviewed for further consideration. If deemed ineligible, IHS will not return the application. The applicant will be notified by email by the Division of Grants Management (DGM) of this decision.
Organizations claiming non-profit status must submit proof. A copy of the 501(c)(3) Certificate must be received with the application submission by the Application Deadline Date listed under the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.
An applicant submitting any of the above additional documentation after the initial application submission due date is required to ensure the information was received by the IHS by obtaining documentation confirming delivery (
The application package and detailed instructions for this announcement can be found at
Questions regarding the electronic application process may be directed to Mr. Paul Gettys at (301) 443-2114.
The applicant must include the project narrative as an attachment to the application package. Mandatory documents for all applicants include:
• Table of contents.
• Abstract (one page) summarizing the project.
• Application forms:
○ SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.
○ SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.
○ SF-424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.
• Budget Justification and Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed five pages).
• Project Narrative (must not exceed 20 pages).
○ Background information on the organization.
○ Proposed scope of work, objectives, and activities that provide a description of what will be accomplished, including a one-page Timeframe Chart.
• Letter of Support from organization's Board of Directors.
• 501(c)(3) Certificate.
• Biographical sketches for all Key Personnel.
• Contractor/Consultant resumes or qualifications and scope of work.
• Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL).
• Certification Regarding Lobbying (GG-Lobbying Form).
• Copy of current Negotiated Indirect Cost rate (IDC) agreement (required in order to receive IDC).
• Organizational Chart (optional).
• Documentation of current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Financial Audit (if applicable).
Acceptable forms of documentation include:
○ Email confirmation from Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) that audits were submitted; or
○ Face sheets from audit reports. These can be found on the FAC Web site:
All Federal-wide public policies apply to IHS grants and cooperative agreements with exception of the discrimination policy.
This narrative should be a separate Word document that is no longer than 20 pages and must: be single-spaced, type written, have consecutively numbered pages, use black type not smaller than 12 characters per one inch, and printed on one side only of standard size 8
Be sure to succinctly answer all questions listed under the evaluation criteria (refer to Section V.1, Evaluation criteria in this announcement), and place all responses and required information in the correct section (noted below), or they will not be considered or scored. These narratives will assist the Objective Review Committee (ORC) in becoming more familiar with the grantee's activities and accomplishments prior to this possible cooperative agreement award. If the narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first 20 pages will be reviewed. The 20-page limit for the narrative does not include the work plan, standard forms, Tribal resolutions, table of contents, budget, budget justifications, narratives, and/or other appendix items.
There are three parts to the narrative: Part A—Program Information; Part B—Program Planning and Evaluation; and Part C—Program Report. See below for additional details about what must be included in the narrative. The page limitations below are for each narrative and budget submitted.
Describe your organization's understanding of the needs of this cooperative agreement and how your organization has the experience to provide outreach and education efforts regarding the pertinent changes and updates in health research.
Describe fully and clearly how the national AI/AN membership organization plans to address the requirements and tasks.
Describe fully and clearly how your planned outreach and education efforts will impact changes in knowledge and awareness in Tribal health professionals and among AI/AN health researchers and health research students. Describe how your organization will measure/monitor/track these impacts; include existing or planned new data sources.
Section 1: Identify and describe your organization's significant program activities and achievements over the past five years associated with the goals of this agreement, including improved delivery of quality health research education and the growth of the national community of AI/AN health researchers. Provide a comparison of the actual accomplishments to the goals established for the project period or, if
This narrative must include a line item budget with a narrative justification for all expenditures identifying reasonable allowable, allocable costs necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives as outlined in the project narrative. Budget should match the scope of work described in the project narrative.
Applications must be submitted electronically through
If technical challenges arise and assistance is required with the electronic application process, contact
Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.
• Pre-award costs are not allowable.
• The available funds are inclusive of direct and appropriate indirect costs.
• Only one grant/cooperative agreement will be awarded.
• IHS will not acknowledge receipt of applications.
All applications must be submitted electronically. Please use the
If the applicant needs to submit a paper application instead of submitting electronically through
Once the waiver request has been approved, the applicant will receive a confirmation of approval email containing submission instructions and the mailing address to submit the application. A copy of the written approval must be submitted along with the hardcopy of the application that is mailed to DGM. Paper applications that are submitted without a copy of the signed waiver from the Senior Policy Analyst of the DGM will not be reviewed or considered for funding. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Paper applications must be received by the DGM no later than 5:00 p.m., EDT, on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Late applications will not be accepted for processing or considered for funding. Applicants that do not adhere to the timelines for System for Award Management (SAM) and/or
Please be aware of the following:
• Please search for the application package in
• If you experience technical challenges while submitting your application electronically, please contact
• Upon contacting
• Applicants are strongly encouraged not to wait until the deadline date to begin the application process through
• Please use the optional attachment feature in
• All applicants must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this funding announcement.
• After electronically submitting the application, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgment from
• Email applications will not be accepted under this announcement.
All IHS applicants and grantee organizations are required to obtain a DUNS number and maintain an active registration in the SAM database. The DUNS number is a unique 9-digit identification number provided by D&B which uniquely identifies your entity. The DUNS number is site specific; therefore, each distinct performance site may be assigned a DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, you may access it through
All HHS recipients are required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, as amended (“Transparency Act”), to report information on sub-awards. Accordingly, all IHS grantees must notify potential first-tier sub-recipients that no entity may receive a first-tier sub-award unless the entity has provided its DUNS number to the prime grantee organization. This requirement ensures the use of a universal identifier to enhance the quality of information available to the public pursuant to the Transparency Act.
Organizations that were not registered with Central Contractor Registration and have not registered with SAM will need to obtain a DUNS number first and then
Additional information on implementing the Transparency Act, including the specific requirements for DUNS and SAM, can be found on the IHS Grants Management, Grants Policy Web site:
The instructions for preparing the application narrative also constitute the evaluation criteria for reviewing and scoring the application. Weights assigned to each section are noted in parentheses. The 20 page narrative should include only the first year of activities; information for multi-year projects should be included as an appendix. See “Multi-year Project Requirements” at the end of this section for more information. The narrative section should be written in a manner that is clear to outside reviewers unfamiliar with prior related activities of the applicant. It should be well organized, succinct, and contain all information necessary for reviewers to understand the project fully. Points will be assigned to each evaluation criteria adding up to a total of 100 points. A minimum score of 70 points is required for funding. Points are assigned as follows:
(1) Describe your organization's understanding of the needs of this cooperative agreement.
(2) Describe the organization's current operations as related to the spectrum of health research needs and dissemination of health research information and support to Tribes, AI/AN communities, and Tribal colleges and universities among others. Include information regarding technologies currently used (
(3) Describe the organization's current technical assistance ability. Include what programs and services are currently provided, programs and services projected to be provided, and describe any memorandums of agreement with other national Indian organizations.
(4) Describe the population to be served by the proposed project. Are they hard to reach? Are there barriers? Identify all previous IHS funds received, dates of funding and summaries of the projects' accomplishments. State how previous funds facilitated education, training and technical assistance nationwide for AI/ANs.
(5) Describe collaborative and supportive efforts with Tribal Epidemiology Centers, NARCH grantees, university centers of AI/AN health research.
(6) Explain the need/reason for your proposed projects by identifying specific gaps or weaknesses in health research training or infrastructure that will be addressed by the proposed projects. Describe the effect of the proposed project on current programs (
(1) Identify the proposed project objective(s) for the project, as applicable, addressing the following:
• Measurable and (if applicable) quantifiable.
• results oriented.
• time-limited.
Example: Issue save the date notices, calls for papers, conference publicity, and registration information. Goals must be clear and concise.
(2) Address the extent to which the proposed projects will provide, improve, or expand health research that address the need(s) of the target population. Submit a work plan in the Appendix that:
• Provides the action steps on a timeline for accomplishing each of the projects' proposed objective(s).
• Identifies who will perform the action steps.
• Identifies who will supervise the action steps taken.
• Identifies what tangible products will be produced during and at the end of the proposed project objective(s).
• Identifies who will accept and/or approve work products during the duration of the proposed projects and at the end of the proposed projects.
• Identifies any training that will take place during the proposed projects and who will be attending the training.
• Identifies evaluation activities proposed in the work plans.
(3) If consultants or contractors will be used during the proposed project, please include the following information in their scope of work (or note if consultants/contractors will not be used):
• Educational requirements.
• Desired qualifications and work experience.
• Expected work products to be delivered on a timeline.
If a potential consultant/contractor has already been identified, please include a resume in the Appendix.
Each proposed objective requires an evaluation component to assess its progress and ensure its completion. Also, include the evaluation activities in the work plan.
Describe the proposed plan to evaluate both outcomes and process. Outcome evaluation relates to the results identified in the objectives, and process evaluation relates to the work plan and activities of the project.
(1) For outcome evaluation, describe:
• The criteria for determining success of each objective.
• The data to be collected which will determine whether the objective was met.
• Data collection intervals and frequency.
• Who will collect the data and their qualifications.
• How the data will be analyzed.
• How results of evaluation will be used.
(2) For process evaluation, describe:
• How the projects will be monitored and assessed for potential problems and needs for quality improvements.
• Who will be responsible for monitoring and managing project improvements based on results of ongoing process improvements and their qualifications.
• How ongoing monitoring will be used to improve the project's performance.
• Products that might be developed and how they might lend themselves to replication by others.
• How the organization will document what is learned throughout the projects' grant periods.
(3) Describe any evaluation efforts planned after the grant period has ended.
(4) Describe the ultimate benefit to the AI/AN population served by the applicant organization that will be derived from these projects.
This section outlines the broader capacity of the organization to complete the project outlined in the work plan. It includes the identification of personnel responsible for completing tasks and the chain of responsibility for successful completion of the projects outlined in the work plans.
(1) Describe the organizational structure of the applicant.
(2) Describe the ability of the organization to manage the proposed project. Include information regarding similarly sized projects in scope and financial assistance, as well as other conferences and projects successfully completed.
(3) Describe equipment (
(4) List key personnel who will work on the projects. Include title used in the work plans. In the Appendix, include position descriptions and resumes for all key personnel. Position descriptions should clearly describe each position and duties, indicating desired qualifications and experience requirements related to the proposed project. Resumes must indicate that the proposed staff member is qualified to carry out the proposed project activities. If a position is to be filled, indicate that information on the proposed position description.
(5) If personnel are to be only partially funded by this cooperative agreement, indicate the percentage of time to be allocated to this project and identify the resources used to fund the remainder of the individual's salary.
This section should provide a clear estimate of the program costs and justification of expenses for the entire period of the cooperative agreement. The budget and budget justification should be consistent with the tasks identified in the work plans.
(1) Provide a categorical budget for the 12-month budget period requested by the project.
(2) If IDC are claimed, indicate and apply the current negotiated rate to the budget. Include a copy of the rate agreement in the Appendix.
(3) Provide a narrative justification explaining why each line item is necessary/relevant to the proposed project. Include sufficient costs and other details to facilitate the determination of cost (
Projects requiring second, third, fourth, and/or fifth year must include a brief project narrative and budget (one additional page per year) addressing the developmental plans for each additional year of the project.
• Work plan, logic model and/or time line for proposed objectives.
• Position descriptions for key staff.
• Resumes of key staff that reflect current duties.
• Consultant or contractor proposed scope of work and letter of commitment (if applicable).
• Current Indirect Cost Agreement.
• Organizational chart(s) highlighting proposed project staff and their supervisors as well as other key contacts within the organization and key community contacts.
• Additional documents to support narrative (
Each application will be prescreened by the DGM staff for eligibility and completeness as outlined in the funding announcement. Applications that meet the eligibility criteria shall be reviewed for merit by the ORC based on evaluation criteria in this funding announcement. The ORC could be composed of both Tribal and Federal reviewers appointed by the IHS program to review and make recommendations on these applications. The technical review process ensures selection of quality projects in a national competition for limited funding. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not be referred to the ORC. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Applicants will be notified by DGM, via email, to outline minor missing components (
To obtain a minimum score for funding by the ORC, applicants must address all program requirements and provide all required documentation.
The Notice of Award (NoA) is a legally binding document signed by the Grants Management Officer and serves as the official notification of the grant award. The NoA will be initiated by the DGM in our grant system, GrantSolutions (
Applicants who received a score less than the recommended funding level for approval (80 points) and were deemed to be disapproved by the ORC, will receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC outlining the weaknesses and strengths of their application submitted. The summary statement will be sent to the Authorized Organizational Representative that is identified on the face page (SF-424) of the application. The IHS program office will also provide additional contact information as needed to address questions and concerns as well as provide technical assistance if desired.
Approved but unfunded applicants that met the minimum scoring range and were deemed by the ORC to be “Approved”, but were not funded due to lack of funding, will have their applications held by DGM for a period of one year. If additional funding becomes available during the course of FY 2016 the approved but unfunded application may be re-considered by the awarding program office for possible funding. The applicant will also receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC.
Any correspondence other than the official NoA signed by an IHS Grants Management Official announcing to the Project Director that an award has been made to their organization is not an authorization to implement their program on behalf of IHS.
Cooperative agreements are administered in accordance with the following regulations and policies:
A. The criteria as outlined in this program announcement.
B. Administrative Regulations for Grants:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, located at 45 CFR Part 75.
C. Grants Policy:
• HHS Grants Policy Statement, Revised 01/07.
D. Cost Principles:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Cost Principles,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart E.
E. Audit Requirements:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Audit Requirements,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart F.
This section applies to all grant recipients that request reimbursement of indirect costs (IDC) in their grant application. In accordance with HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II-27, IHS requires applicants to obtain a current IDC rate agreement prior to award. The rate agreement must be prepared in accordance with the applicable cost principles and guidance as provided by the cognizant agency or office. A current rate covers the applicable grant activities under the current award's budget period. If the current rate is not on file with the DGM at the time of award, the IDC portion of the budget will be restricted. The restrictions remain in place until the current rate is provided to the DGM.
Generally, IDC rates for IHS grantees are negotiated with the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA)
The grantee must submit required reports consistent with the applicable deadlines. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in one or both of the following: (1) The imposition of special award provisions; and (2) the non-funding or non-award of other eligible projects or activities. This requirement applies whether the delinquency is attributable to the failure of the grantee organization or the individual responsible for preparation of the reports. Per DGM policy, all reports are required to be submitted electronically by attaching them as a “Grants Note” in the GrantSolutions. Personnel responsible for submitting reports will be required to obtain a login and password for GrantSolutions. Please see the Agency Contacts list in section VII for the systems contact information.
The reporting requirements for this program are noted below.
Program progress reports are required semiannually, within 30 days after the budget period ends. These reports must include a brief comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals established for the period, or, if applicable, provide sound justification for the lack of progress, and other pertinent information as required. A final report must be submitted within 90 days of expiration of the budget period/period of performance.
Federal Financial Report FFR (SF-425), Cash Transaction Reports are due 30 days after the close of every calendar quarter to the Division of Payment Management, HHS at:
Grantees are responsible and accountable for accurate information being reported on all required reports: The Progress Reports and Federal Financial Report.
The following requirements were enacted in Section 3003 of the Consolidated Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, and Section 119 of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014;
This award may be subject to the Transparency Act sub-award and executive compensation reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170.
The Transparency Act requires the OMB to establish a single searchable database, accessible to the public, with information on financial assistance awards made by Federal agencies. The Transparency Act also includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards.
IHS has implemented a Term of Award into all IHS Standard Terms and Conditions, NoAs and funding announcements regarding the FSRS reporting requirement. This IHS Term of Award is applicable to all IHS grant and cooperative agreements issued on or after October 1, 2010, with a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold met for any specific reporting period. Additionally, all new (discretionary) IHS awards (where the project period is made up of more than one budget period) and where: (1) The project period start date was October 1, 2010 or after and (2) the primary awardee will have a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold during any specific reporting period will be required to address the FSRS reporting.
For the full IHS award term implementing this requirement and additional award applicability information, visit the DGM Grants Policy Web site at:
Recipients of Federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with Federal civil rights law. This means that recipients of HHS funds must ensure equal access to their programs without regard to a person's race, color, national origin, disability,
Applicants will be required to sign the HHS-690 Assurance of Compliance form located at
The IHS is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) before making any award in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000) over the period of performance. An applicant may review and comment on any information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered. IHS will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR 75.205.
As required by 45 CFR part 75 Appendix XII of the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities (NFEs) are required to disclose in FAPIIS any information about criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, and/or affirm that there is no new information to provide. This applies to NFEs that receive Federal awards (currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts) greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of an award/project.
As required by 2 CFR part 200 of the Uniform Guidance, and the HHS implementing regulations at 45 CFR part 75, effective January 1, 2016, the IHS must require a non-federal entity or an applicant for a Federal award to disclose, in a timely manner, in writing to the IHS or pass-through entity all violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery,or gratutity violations potentially affecting the Federal award.
Submission is required for all applicants and recipients, in writing, to the IHS and to the HHS Office of Inspector General all information related to violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the federal award. 45 CFR 75.113.
Disclosures must be sent in writing to:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service, Division of Grants Management, ATTN: Mr. Robert Tarwater, Director, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop 09E70, Rockville, Maryland 20857, (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line), Ofc: (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, ATTN: Mandatory Grant Disclosures, Intake Coordinator, 330 Independence Avenue SW., Cohen Building, Room 5527, Washington, DC 20201, URL:
Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in 45 CFR 75.371. Remedies for noncompliance, including suspension or debarment (See 2 CFR parts 180 & 376 and 31 U.S.C. 3321).
1. Questions on the programmatic issues may be directed to: Mr. Mose Herne, MPH, MS, IHS Research Director, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop 09E10D, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-1549, Fax: (301) 443-0114, Email:
2. Questions on grants management and fiscal matters may be directed to: Ms. Patience Musikikongo, DGM, Grants Management Specialist, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop 09E70, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-2059, Fax: (301) 443-9602, Email:
3. Questions on systems matters may be directed to: Mr. Paul Gettys, Grant Systems Coordinator, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-2114; or the DGM main line (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 443-9602, Email:
The Public Health Service strongly encourages all cooperative agreement and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which requires 30 days for public comment on proposed information collection projects, the Indian Health Service (IHS) is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for an extension for this collection, titled, “Application for Participation in the IHS Scholarship Program (OMB Control Number 0917-0006),” with an expiration date of September 30, 2016. This proposed information collection project was previously published in the
The table below provides: Types of data collection instruments, Estimated number of respondents, Number of responses per respondent, Annual number of responses, Average burden hour per response, and Total annual burden hours.
There are no direct costs to respondents other than their time to voluntarily complete the forms and submit them for consideration. The estimated cost in time to respondents, as a group, is $46,386 [4,303 burden hours × $10.78 per hour (2016 GS-3 hourly base pay rate)]. This total dollar amount is based upon the number of burden hours per data collection instrument, rounded to the nearest dollar.
National Institutes of Health.
Request for comment.
The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), National Institutes of Health (NIH) is requesting public comment on the draft 2017-2021 NIDCD Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan serves as a guide to the NIDCD in prioritizing its research investment, illustrates the current state-of-the-science, and highlights recent advances in the communication sciences. The draft Plan presents a series of goals and objectives that represent the most promising research needs within the NIDCD's mission areas.
Comments will be accepted through September 30, 2016.
The draft Plan is available for download at:
Specific questions regarding the NIDCD draft Strategic Plan should be directed to:
The NIDCD mission is to conduct and support biomedical research, behavioral research, and research training in the normal and disordered processes of hearing, balance, taste, smell, voice, speech, and language. The institute also conducts and supports research and research training related to disease prevention and health promotion; addresses special biomedical and behavioral problems associated with people who have communication impairments or disorders; and supports efforts to create devices that substitute for lost and impaired sensory and communication function. To accomplish these goals, the NIDCD manages a broad portfolio of both basic and clinical research. The portfolio is organized into three program areas: Hearing and balance; taste and smell; and voice, speech, and language. The three program areas seek to answer fundamental scientific questions about normal function and disorders and to identify patient-oriented scientific discoveries for preventing, screening, diagnosing, and treating disorders of human communication.
The draft 2017-2021 NIDCD Strategic Plan has been developed over the past 12 months by NIDCD staff in consultation with scientific experts and the National Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Advisory Council. (Details of the development process are included in Appendix B of the draft Plan.) The goals listed in the draft Plan are an assessment of research areas that present the greatest scientific opportunities and public health needs over the next five years for the three program areas: Hearing and balance; taste and smell; and voice, speech and language.
The NIDCD has identified four Priority Areas that have the potential to increase our understanding of the normal and disordered processes of hearing, balance, taste, smell, voice, speech, and language and to further our knowledge in human communication sciences. They are:
•
•
•
•
The goals presented in the Plan are a guide for:
•
•
•
Responses to this request for comments are voluntary. Any personal identifiers (
This request for comment is for information and planning purposes only and should not be construed as a solicitation or as an obligation on the part of the Federal Government, or the NIH. The NIH does not intend to award a grant or contract to pay for the preparation of any information submitted or for the NIH's use of such information. No basis for claims against
The NIDCD anticipates that the finalized plan will be published on the NIDCD Web site in January 2017.
Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Privacy Act System of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Customs and Border Protection—DHS/CBP-022 Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) System of Records.” At the same time, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(j) and (k), DHS proposes to claim certain exemptions for this system. At the same time, in accordance with Privacy Act of 1974, DHS proposes to claim certain exemptions for this system. This system of records will allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect and maintain records on nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport that was issued by an identified country approved for inclusion in the EVUS program and have been issued a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category seeking to travel to the United States. The system of records will also cover records of other persons, including U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, whose name is provided to DHS as part of a nonimmigrant alien's EVUS enrollment. Requiring aliens holding passports of identified countries containing U.S. nonimmigrant visas of a designated category with multiple year validity will allow DHS/CBP to collect updated information. The system is used to ensure a visa holder's information remains current. The information is also used to separately determine whether any admissibility issues may need to be addressed outside the EVUS enrollment process by vetting the information against selected security and law enforcement databases at DHS, including the use of CBP's TECS (not an acronym) (DHS/CBP-011 U.S. Customs and Border Protection TECS, December 19, 2008, 73 FR 77778) and the Automated Targeting System (ATS) (DHS/CBP-006 Automated Targeting System, May 22, 2012, 77 FR 30297). In addition, ATS retains a copy of EVUS enrollment data to identify EVUS enrollees who may pose a security risk to the United States. The ATS maintains copies of key elements of certain databases in order to minimize the impact of processing searches on the operational systems and to act as a backup for certain operational systems. DHS may also vet EVUS enrollment information against security and law enforcement databases at other Federal agencies to enhance DHS's ability to determine whether the enrollee poses a security risk to the United States or, although addressed through a separate process, is admissible to the United States. The results of this vetting may inform DHS's assessment of whether the enrollee's travel poses a law enforcement or security risk and whether the proposed travel should be permitted.
This newly established system will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's inventory of record systems.
This system will be effective October 3, 2016. Comments must be received on or before October 3, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2016-0063 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to
For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, please visit
For general questions, please contact: Debra L. Danisek, (202) 344-1610, Acting CBP Privacy Officer, Privacy and Diversity Office, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20229. For privacy questions, please contact: Jonathan R. Cantor, (202) 343-1717, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, DHS/CBP proposes to establish a new DHS/CBP system of records titled, “DHS/CBP-022 Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) System of Records.”
DHS has developed a fully automated electronic system that enables DHS to collect biographic and other information from certain nonimmigrant aliens on a periodic basis as determined by the Secretary. Specifically, EVUS enables DHS to obtain information from individuals who hold U.S. nonimmigrant visas of a designated category in a passport issued by an identified country. By requiring nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by an identified country containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category to enroll in EVUS, CBP will be able to collect periodic updates of biographical and other information over the length of the visa period that would otherwise not be obtained, which may assist in identifying persons who may pose a risk to the United States.
The Electronic Visa Update System is a web-based system developed to collect updated information from visa holders subject to the EVUS program. The EVUS does not change the process for obtaining a visa. However, after issuance of a visa, nonimmigrant aliens subject to the EVUS requirements would need to successfully enroll in EVUS online every two years to ensure their visa remains valid for travel to the United States. The online enrollment will be designed as a user-friendly interface that would allow other persons to assist the traveler in completing the enrollment. Enrollees are able to submit and update biographic information and answer eligibility questions using the EVUS Web site. Successful EVUS enrollment is required for nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by an identified country containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category. In most cases, the enrollee will
Among other functions, CBP vets the EVUS enrollment information against selected security and law enforcement databases, including the use of TECS and the Automated Targeting System (ATS). The ATS will retain a copy of EVUS enrollment data to identify EVUS enrollees who may pose a security risk to the United States. ATS will maintain copies of key elements of certain databases to minimize the impact of processing searches on operational systems and to act as a backup for certain operational systems. DHS may also vet EVUS enrollment information against security and law enforcement databases at other federal agencies to enhance DHS's ability to determine whether the enrollee poses a security risk to the United States. The results of this vetting may support DHS's initial assessment of whether the enrollee's travel poses a law enforcement or security risk and whether there may be issues which may require separate consideration. The individual must attempt enrollment and receive a notification of compliance prior to boarding a carrier destined to the United States. Furthermore, the EVUS system will continuously query/vet enrollment information against law enforcement databases. EVUS status can change at any time.
The data elements on the EVUS enrollment questionnaire will make the screening of travelers more robust. The required data elements strengthen security in the EVUS enrollment process by enhancing the capability to identify individuals who may pose a threat to the United States or otherwise be found inadmissible at the time that they apply for entry at a U.S. port of entry. Enrollment in EVUS will not guarantee admission into the United States. CBP will continue to employ standard entry procedures to determine admissibility at U.S. ports of entry.
When a person submits an EVUS enrollment, CBP examines the enrollment questionnaire by screening the enrollee's data through ATS and TECS. The initial and updated biographic information obtained by EVUS is important to identify any concerns regarding future admissibility. Failure to successfully enroll in EVUS when required as described above will result in the automatic provisional revocation of the alien's visa, and the alien will not be authorized to travel to the United States unless or until the alien enrolls in EVUS and obtains a notification of compliance. If a visa is provisionally revoked on the basis of failing to provide or update information to EVUS, the person can attempt EVUS enrollment again, and if successful the provisional revocation of his/her visa would be reversed. In addition, non-compliance with EVUS would be a basis for commercial carriers to deny boarding to an individual seeking to travel to the United States. Because non-compliance with EVUS results in automatic provisional revocation of the individual's visa, the individual would not have valid travel documents upon attempting to board.
DHS/CBP has authority to operate this system under sec. 402(4) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 201,
Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in EVUS may be shared with other DHS components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. Information stored in EVUS may also be shared with other federal security and counterterrorism agencies, as well as on a case-by-case basis to appropriate State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies. This external sharing takes place after DHS determines that it is compatible with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.
Additionally, for ongoing, systematic sharing, DHS completes an information sharing and access agreement with federal partners to establish the terms and conditions of the sharing, including: documenting the need to know, identifying authorized users and uses, protecting the privacy of the data, and ensuring the confidentiality of visa records, as applicable. This updated system will be included in DHS's inventory of systems of records, located on the DHS Web site at
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals when systems of records maintain information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors.
Given the importance of providing privacy protections to international travelers, even prior to the collection of the data elements in EVUS that may include information about U.S. persons, DHS always administratively applies the privacy protections and safeguards of the Privacy Act to all international travelers subject to EVUS. The Electronic Visa Update System falls squarely within the mixed system policy and DHS will continue to extend the administrative protections of the Privacy Act to information about travelers and non-travelers whose information is provided to DHS as part of the EVUS enrollment.
Below is the description of the DHS/CBP-022 Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) System of Records.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-022.
DHS/CBP-022 Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS)
Unclassified. The data may be retained on classified networks but this does not change the nature and character of the data until it is combined with classified information.
Records are maintained at DHS/CBP Headquarters in Washington, DC, and in field offices. Records are replicated from the operational system and maintained on the DHS unclassified and classified networks.
Categories of individuals covered by this system include:
1. Nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by an identified country containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category; and
2. Persons, including U.S. Citizens and lawful permanent residents, whose information is provided in response to EVUS enrollment questions.
Nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by an identified country containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category to obtain the required travel authorization by electronically submitting an enrollment consisting of biographic and other data elements via the EVUS Web site. The categories of records in EVUS include:
• Full name (first, middle, and last);
• Other names or aliases, if available;
• Date of birth;
• City and country of birth;
• Gender;
• Email address;
• Telephone number (home, mobile, work, other);
• Home address (address, apartment number, city, state/region);
• Internet protocol (IP) address;
• EVUS enrollment number;
• Global Entry Program Number;
• Country of residence;
• Passport number;
• Passport issuing country;
• Passport issuance date;
• Passport expiration date;
• Department of Treasury Pay.gov payment tracking number (
• Country of citizenship;
• Other citizenship (country, passport number);
• National identification number, if available;
• Address while visiting the United States (number, street, city, state);
• Emergency point of contact information (name, telephone number, email address);
• U.S. Point of Contact (name, address, telephone number);
• Parents' names;
• Current job title;
• Current or previous employer name;
• Current or previous employer street address; and
• Current or previous employer telephone number.
The categories of records in EVUS also include responses to the following questions:
• Do you have a physical or mental disorder, or are you a drug abuser or addict,
○ Cholera
○ Diphtheria
○ Tuberculosis, infection
○ Plague
○ Smallpox
○ Yellow Fever
○ Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers, including Ebola, Lassa, Marburg, Crimean-Congo
○ Severe acute respiratory illnesses capable of transmission to other persons and likely to cause mortality.
• Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority?
• Have you ever violated any law related to possessing, using, or distributing illegal drugs?
• Do you seek to engage in or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities, espionage, sabotage, or genocide?
• Have you ever committed fraud or misrepresented yourself or others to obtain, or assist others to obtain, a visa or entry into the United States?
• Are you currently seeking employment in the United States or were you previously employed in the United States without prior permission from the U.S. government?
• Have you ever been denied a U.S. visa you applied for with your current or previous passport, or have you ever been refused admission to the United States or withdrawn your application for admission at a U.S. port of entry? If yes, when and where?
• Have you ever stayed in the United States longer than the admission period granted to you by the U.S. government?
• Have you ever been a citizen or national of any other country? If yes, other countries of previous citizenship or nationality?
Title IV of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6.U.S.C. 201
The purpose of this system is to collect and maintain a record of nonimmigrant aliens holding a passport issued by an identified country containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category, and to determine whether there is information that requires separate, additional action.
The Department of Treasury
DHS maintains a replica of some or all of the data in EVUS on the unclassified and classified DHS networks to allow for analysis and vetting consistent with the above stated uses, purposes, and this published notice.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including Offices of the United States Attorneys, or other Federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. DHS or any Component thereof;
2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her official capacity;
3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof.
B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
1. DHS suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;
2. DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of identity theft or fraud, harm to economic or property interests, harm to an individual, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by DHS or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and
3. The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to DHS officers and employees.
G. To appropriate Federal, State, local, international, tribal, or foreign governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations responsible for investigating or prosecuting the violations of, or for enforcing or implementing, a statute, rule, regulation, order, license, or treaty when DHS determines that the information would assist in the enforcement of civil or criminal laws;
H. To appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, or foreign governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations for the purpose of protecting the vital health interests of a data subject or other persons (
I. To third parties during the course of a law enforcement investigation to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation, provided disclosure is appropriate in the proper performance of the official duties of the officer making the disclosure.
J. To a Federal, State, tribal, local, international, or foreign government agency or entity for the purpose of consulting with that agency or entity: (1) To assist in making a determination regarding redress for an individual in connection to a program; (2) for the purpose of verifying the identity of an individual seeking redress in connection with the operations of a DHS Component or program; or (3) for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of information submitted by an individual who has requested such redress on behalf of another individual.
K. To Federal and foreign government intelligence or counterterrorism agencies or components thereof when DHS becomes aware of an indication of a threat or potential threat to national or international security to assist in countering such threat, or to assist in anti-terrorism efforts.
L. To the Department of State in the processing of petitions or applications for benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and all other immigration and nationality laws including treaties and reciprocal agreements.
M. To an organization or individual in either the public or private sector, either foreign or domestic, when there is a reason to believe that the recipient is or could become the target of a particular terrorist activity or conspiracy, to the extent the information is relevant to the protection of life or property.
N. To the carrier transporting an individual to the United States, prior to travel, in response to a request from the carrier, to verify an individual's travel authorization status.
O. To the Department of Treasury's
P. To a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses in the course of civil discovery, litigation, or settlement negotiations, in response to a subpoena, or in connection with criminal law proceedings.
Q. To appropriate Federal, State, local, international, tribal, or foreign governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations responsible for investigating or prosecuting the violations of, or for enforcing or implementing, a statute, rule, regulation, order, license, or treaty when DHS determines that the information would assist in the enforcement of civil or criminal laws.
R. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS, or when disclosure is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent the Chief Privacy Officer determines that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
None.
DHS/CBP stores records in this system electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records are safeguarded with passwords and encryption and may be stored on magnetic disc, tape, and digital media.
DHS/CBP may retrieve records by any of the data elements supplied by the enrollee.
DHS/CBP safeguards records in this system according to applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. CBP has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of
Enrollment information submitted to EVUS generally expires and is deemed “inactive” two years after the initial submission of information by the enrollee. In the event that a traveler's passport remains valid for less than two years from the date of the EVUS notification of compliance, the EVUS enrollment will expire concurrently with the passport. Information in EVUS will be retained for one year after the EVUS travel enrollment expires. After this period, the inactive account information will be purged from online access and archived for 12 years. At any time during the 15-year retention period (generally 3 years active, 12 years archived) CBP will match data linked to active law enforcement lookout records to enforcement activities, and/or investigations or cases, including EVUS enrollment attempts that are unsuccessful, which will remain accessible for the life of the law enforcement activities to which they may become related. NARA guidelines for retention and archiving of data will apply to EVUS and CBP continues to negotiate with NARA for approval of the EVUS data retention and archiving plan. Records replicated on the unclassified and classified networks will follow the same retention schedule.
Payment information is not stored in EVUS, but is forwarded to
When a traveler's EVUS data is used for purposes of processing his or her application for admission to the United States, the EVUS data will be used to create a corresponding admission record in the DHS/CBP-016 Non-Immigrant Information System (NIIS) (March 13, 2015, 80 FR 13398). This corresponding admission record will be retained in accordance with the NIIS retention schedule, which is 75 years.
Director, Office of Automated Systems, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Headquarters, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229.
Enrollees may access their EVUS information to view and amend their enrollment by providing their EVUS number, birth date, and passport number through the EVUS Web site. Once they have provided their EVUS number, birth date, and passport number, enrollees may view their EVUS status (successful enrollment, unsuccessful enrollment, pending) and submit limited updates to their travel itinerary information. If an enrollee does not know his or her enrollment number, he or she can provide his or her name, passport number, date of birth, passport issuing country, and visa number to retrieve his or her enrollment number.
In addition, EVUS enrollees and other individuals whose information is included on EVUS enrollment may submit requests and receive information maintained in this system as it relates to data submitted by or on behalf of a person who travels to the United States and crosses the border, as well as, for EVUS enrollees, the resulting determination (successful enrollment, pending, unsuccessful enrollment). However, the Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted portions of this system from certain provisions of the Privacy Act related to providing the accounting of disclosures to individuals because it is a law enforcement system. CBP will, however, consider individual requests to determine whether or not information may be released. In processing requests for access to information in this system, CBP will review not only the records in the operational system but also the records that were replicated on the unclassified and classified networks, and based on this notice provide appropriate access to the information.
Individuals seeking notification of, and access to, any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the Chief Privacy Officer and Headquarters Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer, whose contact information can be found at
When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer,
• Explain why you believe the Department would have information on you;
• Identify which component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you;
• Specify when you believe the records would have been created; and
• Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS component agency may have responsive records.
If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his or her agreement for you to access his or her records.
Without the above information, the component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
See “Notification procedure” above.
See “Notification procedure” above.
Records are obtained from the online EVUS enrollment at
No exemption shall be asserted with respect to information maintained in the system as it relates to data submitted by or on behalf of a person who travels to visit the United States and crosses the border, nor shall an exemption be asserted with respect to the resulting determination (authorized to travel, pending, or not authorized to travel). Information in the system may be shared with law enforcement and/or intelligence agencies pursuant to the above routine uses. The Privacy Act requires DHS to maintain an accounting
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to request a second call for nominations for one open position on the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Utah Resource Advisory Council (RAC) because we did not receive a sufficient number of applications from the first call for nominations. The vacant position is in category three, employees of a State agency responsible for the management of natural resources. The RAC provides advice and recommendations to the BLM on land use planning and management of the National System of Public Lands within their geographic areas. The BLM will accept public nominations for 30 days after the publication of this notice.
All nominations must be received no later than October 3, 2016.
All nominations must be sent to Lola Bird, Public Affairs Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101.
Lola Bird, Public Affairs Specialist, Bureau of Land Management Utah State Office, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101; by telephone (801) 539-4033 or by email:
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) directs the Secretary of the Interior to involve the public in planning and issues related to management of public lands administered by the BLM. Section 309 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1739) directs the Secretary to establish 10- to 15-member citizen-based advisory councils that are consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). As required by FACA, RAC membership must be balanced and representative of the various interests concerned with the management of the public lands.
The BLM-Utah RAC is hosting a call for nominations for a vacant position in category three (description addressed in the
The BLM-Utah will consult with the governor's office before forwarding its recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior for a final decision. Simultaneous with this notice, BLM-Utah will issue a press release providing additional information for submitting nominations.
43 CFR 1784.4-1.
National Park Service, Interior.
Public notice.
The National Park Service hereby gives public notice that it proposes to extend the following expiring concession contract until December 31, 2017, or until the effective date of a new contract, whichever occurs sooner:
Effective November 1, 2016.
Brian Borda, Chief, Commercial Services Program, National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, Telephone: 202-513-7156.
The listed concession contract will expire by its terms on October 31, 2016. The National Park Service has determined the proposed short-term extension necessary to avoid interruption of visitor services and has taken all reasonable and appropriate steps to consider alternatives to avoid such interruption. The National Park Service considered issuing a temporary concession contract, but deemed that alternative impractical given the time constraints and likelihood it would not increase competition. Under the provisions of the current concession
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of change in jurisdiction.
On behalf of the United States, the National Park Service accepted exclusive jurisdiction from the Commonwealth of Kentucky over certain lands and waters administered by the National Park Service within Mammoth Cave National Park. The National Park Service also accepted concurrent jurisdiction between the United States and the Commonwealth of Kentucky on certain lands and waters administered by the National Park Service within Abraham Lincoln National Historic Site, Cumberland Gap National Historical Park, and Fort Donelson National Battlefield.
Jonathan Pierce, National Park Service, Southeast Region, 100 Alabama Street SW., 1924 Building, Atlanta, GA 30303. Phone: 404-507-5726.
Mammoth Cave National Park (MACA) was created by Congress in 1926. In 1930, the Commonwealth of Kentucky ceded to the United States exclusive jurisdiction over all lands and waters acquired by the United States for MACA, effective when the United States accepted such jurisdiction by statute on June 5, 1942. By Kentucky law, the cession and acceptance was limited to lands owned by the United States. On July 2, 1986, the Director of the National Park Service (NPS) notified the Governor of Kentucky that he was accepting exclusive jurisdiction over lands and waters acquired by the United States within MACA between 1942 and 1986.
Since July 2, 1986, the United States has acquired additional lands for MACA. Accordingly, in a letter dated May 21, 2014, the Director of the NPS notified the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky that he formally accepted on behalf of NPS exclusive jurisdiction over lands and waters within the legislated boundaries of MACA, that were acquired by the U.S. Government after July 2, 1986. Exclusive jurisdiction over these lands was established by the Governor's acknowledgement of receipt of the letter on December 7, 2015.
For the lands within MACA whereby exclusive jurisdiction had been accepted in 1942 and 1986, that acceptance remains in effect.
On April 19, 1994, upon application by the NPS, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky signed Executive Order 94-355 (E.O.), ceding legislative jurisdiction on lands owned by the United States within Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site (ABLI), Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area (BISO), and Cumberland Gap National Historical Park (CUGA). The Director of the NPS accepted the cession as required by Federal law. Part IV of the E.O. provided that, in the event of an alteration of the descriptions of the lands, the NPS would transmit new descriptions to be annexed to the E.O.
Since April 19, 1994, the United States has acquired additional lands in Kentucky within the legislated boundaries of ABLI and CUGA. Further, an additional unit of the National Park System, Fort Donelson National Battlefield (FODO; Fort Heiman Unit), has been established in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. To bring these NPS administered lands under concurrent legislative jurisdiction, it was necessary to update the E.O. of April 19, 1994.
Therefore, the Commonwealth of Kentucky through signature on a cession instrument by the Governor ceded to the United States such measure of jurisdiction as necessary to effectuate a status of concurrent legislative jurisdiction for purposes of criminal law enforcement on these acquired lands within ABLI, CUGA, and FODO.
This cession is limited to lands within each of the above-listed units which were acquired since April 19, 1994. The NPS, acting through the Director, formally accepted the described cession of concurrent jurisdiction, through his signature on the cession instrument. Concurrent legislative jurisdiction became effective with entry of the cession instrument upon the Executive Journal for the Commonwealth of Kentucky on July 28, 2016.
For all other NPS administered lands within these units whereby concurrent legislative jurisdiction had been ceded in 1994, that cession remains in effect.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in consultation with the appropriate federally recognized Indian tribes, and has determined that a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day federally recognized Indian tribes cannot be reasonably traced. Representatives of any federally recognized Indian tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to TVA. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the federally recognized Indian tribe stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any federally recognized Indian tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to TVA at the address in this notice by October 3, 2016.
Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, 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 and associated funerary objects under the control of TVA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from sites in Lauderdale County, AL.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by TVA professional staff in consultation with the University of Alabama and representatives of the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); The Chickasaw Nation; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
The sites listed in this notice were excavated as part of TVA's Pickwick Reservoir project by the Alabama Museum of Natural History (AMNH) at the University of Alabama, using labor and funds provided by the Works Progress Administration. Details regarding these excavations and sites may be found in a report,
In February 1937, human remains representing, at minimum, 24 individuals were removed from the Smithsonia Landing site, 1LU5, in Lauderdale County, AL. Excavation commenced after TVA acquired the land encompassing site 1LU5 on May 4, 1936. This shell midden site had been disturbed by a historic riverboat landing and associated buildings. This disturbance and rising reservoir water levels led to limited excavations revealing a Late Archaic (4000-1000 B.C.) occupation. The human remains include adults, juveniles, and infants of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. There are 19 associated funerary objects including 2 stone adzes, 1 chert biface, 2 bone awls, 2 Little Bear Creek projectile points, 3 fresh water pearl beads, and 9 shell beads.
From August 1937 to April 1938, human remains representing, at minimum, 8 individuals were removed from 1LU21, in Lauderdale County, AL. Excavation commenced after TVA acquired the land encompassing this site on February 19, 1937. Excavations focused on the earthen mound, constructed in four stages and supported at least four superimposed structures and two peripheral single post structures. The primary occupation of this mound was during the Kogers Island phase (A.D. 1200-1500) of the Mississippian period. The human remains represent infants, adolescents, and adults. No known individuals were identified. The 179 associated funerary objects include 1 Bell Plain bottle; 1 Bell Plain double jar; 1 celt; 1 copper gorget fragment; 9 copper ear spool fragments; 2 copper covered wood bead fragments; 1 hooded owl effigy bottle; 1 Mississippi Plain bowl; 14 Mississippi Plain double jar fragments; 1 Mississippi Plain jar; 42 Mississippi Plain jar fragments; 27 Mississippi Plain sherds; 1 Mississippi Plain red-filmed rim; 1 Moundville Engraved bottle; 2 shell gorget fragments; 73 shell beads; and 1 shell-tempered incised and noded composite jar/bowl.
From October 1937 to December 1938, human remains representing, at minimum, 159 individuals were removed from site 1LU92 in Lauderdale County, AL. Excavation commenced after TVA purchased this land on November 27, 1935. Site 1LU92 was composed of both a village and a cemetery and excavations focused on the cemetery. There was no clear stratigraphy at the site. The excavators believed the village midden was created by an earlier occupation than the cemetery. The cemetery occupation is attributed to the Kogers Island phase (A.D. 1200-1500) of the Mississippian period. The human remains include adults, juveniles, children, and infants of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. The 3,654 associated funerary objects include 39 antler tip projectile points; 1 antler tool; 1 Barton Incised, var. unspecified jar; 4 Baytown Plain sherds; 20 bear tooth beads; 1 beaver incisor; 119 Bell Plain sherds; 4 Bell Plain bottles; 3 Bell Plain bowl sherds; 2 Bell Plain bowls; 2 Bell plain Effigy bowls; 2 Bell Plain jars; 1 Bell Plain lobate bottle; 4 chert bifaces ; 1 bird bone; 109 bird sternum fragments; 28 bone awls; 6 bone awl fragments; 2 bone fragments; 2 bone needles; 12 bone pins; 4 bone tool fragments; 9 repousse copper cutouts; 7 copper ear bob fragments; 15 copper ear plug fragments; 1 copper stained bone needle; 1 cortical chert flake; 1 Crow Creek Noded jar; 4 Duck River sword projectile points/knives; 1 effigy pipe; 2 Elk River projectile points/knives; 1 Flint River projectile point/knife; 1 ground galena nodule; 4 greenstone celts; 2 Guntersville projectile points/knives; 1 hammerstone/abrader; 2 Ledbetter projectile points/knives; 1 Little Bear Creek projectile point/knife; 2 Madison projectile points/knives; 2 mammal tooth beads; 2 McIntire projectile points/knives; 1 McKee Island Brushed jar; 6 McKee Island Brushed sherds; 176 Mississippi Plain sherds; 1 Mississippi Plain bottle; 1 Mississippi Plain bowl; 14 Mississippi Plain jars; 1 modified fish jaw; 2 modified shells; 2 Moundville Engraved, var. Hemphill bottles; 21 Moundville Engraved, var. Tuscaloosa bottle sherds; 1 Moundville Incised, var. Carrolton jar; 1 Moundville Incised, var. unspecified jar; 18 Moundville Incised, var. unspecified sherds; 2 mussel shells; 3 stone palettes; 20 projectile points/knives; 1 rodent mandible; 2,335 shell beads; 3 shell cups; 3 shell ear plugs; 1 Cox style shell gorget; 1 spade/spatulate celt; 1 Stanfield projectile point/knife; 551 turtle shell fragments; 2 unmodified fish jaw; 1 unmodified limestone; 1 unmodified shell; and 58 unmodified stones.
From February to May 1937, and from February to March 1938, human remains representing, at minimum, 13
In February 1937, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 1LU65, adjacent to 1LU64 in Lauderdale County, AL. TVA purchased the land encompassing site 1LU65 on October 28, 1936. A small portion of this village was excavated before inundation of the Pickwick reservoir. The human remains represent one adult of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
From June to September 1936, human remains representing, at minimum, 109 individuals were removed from the Long Branch site, 1LU67 in Lauderdale County, AL. Excavation commenced after TVA purchased three parcels of land encompassing this site on January 11, 1935, September 16, 1935, and February 8, 1936. Site 1LU67 was located immediately adjacent to the Tennessee River. Although described as a mound, this site appears to have been created from the accumulation of discarded shell, village midden, and alluvial soils rather than an intentionally constructed earthwork. This shell midden extended to a depth of 11 feet below surface. The Long Branch site had multiple occupation including the Middle Archaic (6000-4000 B.C.), Late Archaic (4000-1000 B.C.), early Woodland (500-100 B.C.), Middle Woodland (100 B.C. to A.D. 500), Late Woodland (A.D. 500-1000), and Mississippian (A.D. 900-1500) periods. It is not possible to determine from which level of occupation the human remains originated. The human remains include adults, juveniles, children, and infants of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. The 2,330 associated funerary objects include 2 Alexander incised sherds; 1 Alexander Punctated var. Tibbee sherd; 1 antler handle; 2 antler shaft wrenches; 2 antler atlatl hook fragments; 2 Baldwin Plain sherds; 3 Bell Plain bowl rim sherds; 21 Bell Plain sherd; 2 Benton projectile points/knives; 4 chert bifaces; 1 Bluff Creek Simple Stamped sherd; 16 bone awls; 1 bone fragment; 11 bone pendants; 1 decorated bone pin; 14 chert beads; 1 Copena projectile points/knives; 9 fabric fragments; 139 Gastropod shell beads; 2 ground conch shell fragments; 1 hammerstone; 1 Jasper bead, ground; 15 Long Branch Fabric Marked sherds; 7 Mississippi Plain jar sherds; 1 Mulberry Creek Cord Marked sherd; 2 Mulberry Creek Plain sherds; 1,912 shell beads; 44 shell gorgets/pendants; 12 shell pendant fragments; 3 shell pins; 93 terrapin shell fragments; 3 unidentified bone fragments; and 1 Wright Creek Check Stamped sherd.
From January to February 1938, human remains representing, at minimum, 31 individuals were removed from the Union Hollow site, 1LU72, Lauderdale County, AL. Excavation commenced after TVA purchased the land encompassing this site on October 5, 1936. Site 1LU72 was located immediately adjacent to the Tennessee River. This shell “mound” was created from the accumulation of discarded shell, village midden, and alluvial soils rather than intentionally constructed earthworks. This shell midden extended to a depth of 10 feet below surface. Early flooding of the Pickwick reservoir abbreviated excavations at this site. The Union Hollow site had multiple occupation including the Late Archaic (4000-1000 B.C.), Early Woodland (500-100 B.C.) and Mississippian (A.D. 1200-1500) periods. The human remains include infants, children, and adults of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. The 116 associated funerary objects include 2 antler drifts/tools; 1 Baytown Plain sherd; 14 Bell Plain jar sherds; 2 bone fish hooks; 23 bone pendants; 1 Flint Creek projectile point/knife; 1 ground stone abrader; 3 ground stone celts; 1 hammerstone; 2 Long Branch Cord Marked sherds; 1 Mississippi Plain jar; 8 Mississippi Plain sherds; 10 Mississippi Plain noded rim sherds; 3 Mulberry Creek Cord Marked sherds; 2 shell ear plugs; 2 shell cup/spoon fragments; 39 turtle carapace fragments; and 1 Wheeler Check Stamped sherd.
TVA has determined that cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects excavated from sites 1LU5, 1LU21, 1LU92, 1LU64, 1LU65, 1LU67, and 1LU72, and any present-day federally recognized tribes cannot be reasonably traced. Accordingly, these items are culturally unidentifiable, and TVA intends to transfer control of these items pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c).
At the time of the excavation and removal of these human remains and associated funerary objects, the land from which the human remains and associated funerary objects were removed was not the tribal land of any federally recognized Indian tribe. On March 10, 2016, TVA consulted with all federally recognized Indian tribes who are recognized as aboriginal to the area from which these Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed. These tribes are the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. None of these Indian tribes agreed to accept control of the human remains and associated funerary objects. After further consultation with the parties that were a part of this overall consultation, TVA has decided to transfer control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to The Chickasaw Nation.
Officials of TVA have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 345 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 6,308 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1)(i), at the time of excavation of the human remains and associated funerary objects, the land from which the cultural items were removed was not the tribal land of any federally recognized Indian tribe.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1)(ii), the following tribes are aboriginal to the area from which the cultural items were excavated: Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. None of these tribes agreed to accept control of the human remains or associated funerary objects.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(2)(i), TVA has decided to transfer control of the culturally unidentifiable human remains to The Chickasaw Nation.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(4), TVA has decided to transfer control of the culturally unidentifiable associated funerary objects to The Chickasaw Nation.
Representatives of any federally recognized Indian tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email
TVA is responsible for notifying the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); The Chickasaw Nation; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in consultation with the appropriate federally recognized Indian tribes, and has determined that a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day federally recognized Indian tribes cannot be reasonably traced. Representatives of any federally recognized Indian tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to TVA. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the federally recognized Indian tribe stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any federally recognized Indian tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to TVA at the address in this notice by October 3, 2016.
Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, 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 and associated funerary objects under the control of TVA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from archeological sites in Madison and Lawrence Counties, AL.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by TVA professional staff in consultation with the University of Alabama and representatives of the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); The Chickasaw Nation; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
The sites listed in this notice were excavated as part of TVA's Wheeler Reservoir project by the Alabama Museum of Natural History (AMNH) at the University of Alabama, using labor and funds provided by the Works Progress Administration. Details regarding the excavations and sites may be found in reports,
From June to December 1938, human remains representing, at minimum, 242 individuals were removed from the Flint River site, 1MA48, in Madison County, AL. Excavation commenced after TVA acquired the two parcels of land encompassing 1MA48 on November 11, 1935, and July 3, 1936. Excavations revealed multiple occupations including during the Late Archaic (4000-1000 B.C.); Woodland Colbert (300 B.C. to A.D. 100), and Flint River (A.D. 500-1000) phases and the early Mississippian Langston phase (A.D. 900-1200). The human remains include adults, juveniles, children, and infants of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. The 2,572 associated funerary objects include 27 antler tools; 4 bone awls; 4 chert bifaces; 29 bone beads; 8 bone pins; 5 polished bone; 2 bone gorgets; 2 Hillabee Greenstone celts; 1 disk bead; 5 engraved turtle carapace fragments; 1 fired daub; 1 bone fishhook; 2 Flint Creek projectile points/knives; 2 freshwater pearl beads; 1 chert graver; 2 grooved stone abraders; 12 gastropod shell beads; 703 ground sandstone bowl sherds; 3 ground soapstone bowls; 5 ground soapstone bowl sherds; 1 hammerstone; 2 limestone hoes; 1 Ledbetter projectile point; 1 Mississippi Plain jar; 7 rodent mandible fragments; 4 McIntire projectile points; 2 Pickwick projectile points; 7 projectile points/knives; 1 shell-tempered ceramic pipe; 1,660 shell beads; 3 shell gorgets/pendants; 2 chert side scrappers; 1 Smithsonia projectile point; 3 bone spoon fragments; 1 Sykes projectile point; 1 steatite stone bead; 19 textile (cane) and bone fragments; 3 limestone tubular cones/pipes; 1 tubular sandstone cone/pipe; 31 turtle carapace fragments; 1 worked bone; and 1 worked shell.
From May to June 1934, human remains representing, at minimum, 49 individuals were removed from site 1LA13 in Lawrence County, AL. Excavation commenced after TVA purchased this land February 14, 1934. Site 1LA13 was one of the first sites excavated on TVA land in north Alabama. Information about the excavations is not abundant. Excavations revealed this site to be a burial mound. All the burials were considered inclusive to the mound, not intruded into it at a later date. An examination of the funerary objects excavated at this site indicates that this mound was created during the Hobbs Island phase (A.D. 1200-1500) of the Mississippian period. The human remains include adults, juveniles, and children of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. The 65 associated funerary objects include 2 Baytown Plain sherds; 2 Bell Plain bottles; 1 Bell Plain bowl; 7 Bell Plain sherds; 1 Crow Creek Noded jar; 5 Henry Island Plain sherds; 4 McKee Island Brushed sherds; 3 Mississippi Plain jars; 1 Mississippi Plain bowl; 38 Mississippi Plain sherds; and 1 Wheeler Check Stamped sherd.
On January 15, 1986, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 1MA141, near the Whitesburg bridge in Madison County, AL. During phase 2 testing of a potential wastewater pipeline corridor in the Huntsville area, human remains representing one 40-50 year old Native American were encountered. This phase 2 test took place on land TVA had purchased on July 6, 1936. Artifacts recovered from site 1MA141 indicate occupations during the Early and Late Archaic periods. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
TVA determined that cultural affiliation between human remains and associated funerary objects excavated from sites 1MA48, 1MA141, and 1LA13 and any present-day federally recognized tribes cannot be reasonably traced. Accordingly, these items are culturally unidentifiable, and TVA intends to transfer control of these items pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c).
At the time of the excavation and removal of these human remains and associated funerary objects, the land from which the human remains and objects were removed was not the tribal land of any federally recognized Indian tribe. On March 10, 2016, TVA consulted with all federally recognized Indian tribes who are recognized as aboriginal to the area from which these Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed. These tribes are the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. None of these Indian tribes agreed to accept control of the human remains and associated funerary objects. After further consultation with the parties that were a part of this overall consultation, TVA has decided to transfer control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to The Chickasaw Nation.
Officials of TVA have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 292 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 2,637 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1)(i), at the time of excavation of the human remains and associated funerary objects, the land from which the cultural items were removed was not the tribal land of any federally recognized Indian tribe.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1)(ii), the following tribes are aboriginal to the area from which the cultural items were excavated: Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. None of these tribes agreed to accept control of the human remains or associated funerary objects.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(2)(i), TVA has decided to transfer control of the culturally unidentifiable human remains to The Chickasaw Nation.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(4), TVA has decided to transfer control of the culturally unidentifiable associated funerary objects to The Chickasaw Nation.
Representatives of any federally recognized Indian tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email
TVA is responsible for notifying the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); The Chickasaw Nation; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate federally recognized Indian tribes, and has determined that a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day federally recognized Indian tribes can reasonably be traced. Lineal descendants or representatives of any federally recognized Indian tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to TVA. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the federally recognized
Lineal descendants or representatives of any federally recognized Indian tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to TVA at the address in this notice by October 3, 2016.
Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, 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 and associated funerary objects under the control of TVA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from archeological sites in the Guntersville Reservoir in Jackson and Marshall Counties, AL.
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 agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by TVA professional staff in consultation with the University of Alabama and representatives of the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); The Chickasaw Nation; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
The sites listed in this notice were excavated as part of TVA's Guntersville Reservoir project by the Alabama Museum of Natural History (AMNH) at the University of Alabama, using labor and funds provided by the Works Progress Administration. Details regarding these excavations and sites may be found in a report,
From January to April 1939, human remains representing, at minimum, 23 individuals were removed from the Crow Creek Island site, 1JA155, in Jackson County, AL. Excavation commenced after TVA acquired this land on June 30, 1938. Excavations revealed multiple occupations. The culturally affiliated NAGPRA cultural items are from the Crow Creek phase (circa A.D. 1400-1600) at the end of the Mississippian period. The human remains include adults, juveniles, and infants of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. The 657 associated funerary objects include 1 shell gorget; 2 shell ear plugs; 6 Mississippi Plain jars; 41 shell fragments; 1 shell pendant; 1 Barton Incised, var. Barton jar; 28 Mississippi Plain body sherds; 4 McKee Island Brushed jars; 2 Crow Creek Noded jars; 1 Mississippi Plain bird effigy bowls; 2 Mississippi plain bowls; 12 bone pins; 1 Mississippi Plain collared jar; 1 Bell Plain bottle; 36 Mississippi Plain jar sherds; 1 Bell Plain bowl; 12 bone awls; 1 McKee Island Incised jar; 1 McKee Island Punctate jar; 11 McKee Island Brushed bowl sherds; 1 Hillabee schist celt fragment; 1 Moundville Engraved, var. Maxwells Crossing carinated bottle; 6 shell spoon fragments; 51 turtle shell rattle fragments; and 433 shell barrel beads.
From October 1938 to January 1939, human remains representing, at minimum, nine individuals were removed from the Sublet Ferry site, 1JA102, three miles southeast of Hollywood in Jackson County, AL. Excavation commenced after TVA acquired a permit for archeological exploration on June 11, 1938. This land was subsequently purchase on October 17, 1938. Excavations revealed this to be a shell midden overlying a dark midden soil. Both Woodland and Mississippian occupations were identified. The culturally affiliated NAGPRA cultural items are from the Henry Island phase (circa A.D. 1200-1500) of the Mississippian period. The human remains include adults, juveniles, and children of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. The 2,148 associated funerary objects include 3 Baytown Plain sherds; 1 Bell Plain bottle; 5 bone awls; 15 bone pins; 4 bone splinters; 1 chipped stone adz/celt; 1 Cox style shell gorget; 1 discoidal; 1 Duck River projectile point or knife; 1 greenstone celt; 1 Hixon style shell gorget; 3 key-sided copper mace fragments; 37 lithic flakes; 1 Mississippi Plain bowl; 196 Mississippi Plain sherds; 2 Mississippi Plain jars; 1 Moundville Incised, var. Carrollton jar; 91 Moundville Incised, var. Carrollton jar sherds; 1,782 shell disc beads; and 1 shell gorget fragment.
From November 21 to 29, 1938, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 1MS106, 11 miles northeast of the city of Guntersville in Marshall County, AL. Excavation commenced after TVA purchased the land on April 21, 1937. Little is known about this site, except for a one paragraph reference to the excavation in a progress report indicating it was a rapid exploration that recovered three burials. Further, ceramics from this site indicate occupations during both the Woodland and Mississippian periods. The human remains represent a 12-year old individual of indeterminate sex. No known individual was identified. The 280 associate funerary objects include 1 McKee Island Brushed jar, 1 Bell Plain jar, 246 shell barrel beads, and 32 beads made from gastropod shells.
From June 1938 to May 1939, human remains representing, at minimum, 11 individuals were removed from the Columbus City Landing site, 1MS91, 9 miles northeast of the city of Guntersville in Marshall County, AL. Excavation commenced after TVA purchased the land on March 8, 1937. There were excavations in both the village (Unit I) and adjacent mounds (Unit II). Artifacts recovered from this excavation revealed that the primary occupations were during the Middle Woodland (A.D. 100-500), Mississippian (A.D. 1200-1500), and historic periods. The human remains include adults, juveniles, and children of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. The 5,435 associated funerary objects include 1 Bell Plain jar; 1 brass bangle; 1,182 brass beads; 12 brass bells; 5 brass bracelets; 3 brass cones; 1 brass disc; 27 brass fragments; 5 brass pendants; 2 brass rings; 11 copper/brass animal effigy ornaments; 4 copper bangles; 1 copper bead; 1 copper/brass disc; 1 copper-covered wooden earspool; 4,021 glass beads; 1 iron axe; 1 iron bracelet; 1 lead rifle ball; 1 McKee Island Cord-Marked sherd; 52 Mississippi Plain sherds; 94 shell beads;
Although there is no absolute certainty that Native Americans of the Mississippian period are directly related to modern federally recognized tribes, a relationship of shared group identity can reasonably be traced between these modern tribes and the human remains (and associated funerary objects) of the earlier culture identified as Mississippian. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the cultural items from Mississippian and early historic occupations at 1MS91, 1MS106, 1JA102, and 1JA155 are culturally affiliated with Native Americans descendants of the Koasati/Kaskinampo. These descendants include the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. The evidence is as follows:
• Chronicles from Spanish explorers of the 16th century and French explorers of the 17th and 18th century indicates the presence of chiefdom level tribal entities in the southeastern United States which resemble the Mississippian chiefdoms.
• Linguistic analysis of place names noted by multiple Spanish explorers indicates that Koasati speaking groups inhabited northeastern Alabama.
• Early maps and research into the historic Native American occupation of northeastern Alabama indicates that the Koasati (as called by the English) or the Kaskinampo (as called by the French) were found at multiple sites in Jackson and Marshall Counties in the 17th and 18th centuries.
• Oral history, traditions and expert opinions of the descendants of Koasati/Kaskinampo indicate that this portion of the Tennessee River valley was a homeland of their tribe. The subsequent involuntary diaspora of these peoples resulted in descendants of the Koasati/Kaskinampo among multiple federally recognized tribes.
Officials of TVA have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 44 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 8,520 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• 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 associated funerary objects of the Mississippian and early historic occupations of these sites and the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any federally recognized Indian tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email
TVA is responsible for notifying the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); The Chickasaw Nation; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, that this notice has been published.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe from Japan and Romania would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Effective September 1, 2016. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is October 3, 2016. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by November 15, 2016.
Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202-205-3088.
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117-0016/USITC No. 16-5-365, expiration date June 30, 2017. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Information To Be Provided in Response to This Notice of Institution: Please provide the requested information separately for each
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty order on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
This proceeding is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on sulfanilic acid from India and antidumping duty orders on sulfanilic acid from China and India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Effective September 1, 2016. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is October 3, 2016. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by November 15, 2016.
Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202-205-3088.
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117-0016/USITC No. 16-5-366, expiration date June 30, 2017. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
This proceeding is being conducted under authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
On August 9, 2016, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed First Partial Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) Consent Decree (“Consent Decree”) with the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, in the lawsuit entitled
The United States, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, together with the State of New Mexico, filed this lawsuit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”) against Chevron Mining Inc. (“CMI”). The Defendant, CMI, is the owner and operator of the Chevron Questa Mine Superfund Site (“Site”), an inactive Molybdenum mine, located in Taos County, New Mexico. The complaint requests recovery of costs that the United States incurred responding to releases of hazardous substances at the Site. Under the proposed settlement, CMI agrees to pay $5,269,949 in past costs, to perform certain aspects of the remedial action selected by EPA for the Site, which are estimated to cost over $143 million, and to pay EPA's future costs associated with oversight of that work. Other aspects of the remedy will proceed at a later date. In return, the United States agrees not to sue CMI under sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA or under section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for the work that CMI has agreed to perform.
The prior notice of lodging of this Consent Decree, published on August 15, 2016, stated that the Department of Justice would receive comments concerning the settlement for thirty days or until September 14, 2016. Having received a request for an extension of the initial public comment period, the United States is extending the comment period for an additional thirty (30) days, or until October 14, 2016.
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of sixty (60) days from August 14, 2016, any comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Under section 7003(d) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. 6973, a commenter may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area.
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $36.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $11.50.
Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, the 183rd open meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans (also known as the ERISA Advisory Council) will be held as a teleconference on September 27, 2016.
The meeting will take place in C5521 room 4, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Public access is available only in this room (
Organizations or members of the public wishing to submit a written statement may do so by submitting 30 copies on or before September 20, 2016 to Larry Good, Executive Secretary,
Individuals or representatives of organizations wishing to address the Advisory Council should forward their requests to the Executive Secretary or telephone (202) 693-8668. Oral presentations will be limited to ten minutes, time permitting, but an extended statement may be submitted for the record. Individuals with disabilities who need special accommodations should contact the Executive Secretary by September 20, 2016 at the address indicated.
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Notice.
Section 608(a) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 requires the Millennium Challenge Corporation to publish a report that identifies countries that are “candidate countries” for Millennium Challenge Account assistance during FY 2017. The report is set forth in full below.
This report to Congress is provided in accordance with section 608(a) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, 22 U.S.C. §§ 7701, 7707(a) (the Act).
The Act authorizes the provision of assistance for global development through the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) for countries that enter into a Millennium Challenge Compact with the United States to support policies and programs that advance the progress of such countries to achieve lasting economic growth and poverty reduction. The Act requires MCC to take a number of steps in selecting countries with which MCC will seek to enter into a compact, including determining the countries that will be eligible countries for fiscal year (FY) 2017 based on (a) a country's demonstrated commitment to (i) just and democratic governance, (ii) economic freedom, and (iii) investments in its people; (b) the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in the country; and (c) the availability of funds to MCC. These steps include the submission of reports to the congressional committees specified in the Act and the publication of notices in the
The countries that are “candidate countries” for FY 2017 based on their per capita income levels and their eligibility to receive assistance under U.S. law and countries that would be candidate countries but for specified legal prohibitions on assistance (section 608(a) of the Act);
The criteria and methodology that the MCC Board of Directors (Board) will use to measure and evaluate the relative policy performance of the “candidate countries” consistent with the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of section 607 of the Act in order to determine “eligible countries” from among the “candidate countries” (section 608(b) of the Act); and
The list of countries determined by the Board to be “eligible countries” for FY 2017, identification of such countries with which the Board will seek to enter into compacts, and a justification for such eligibility determination and selection for compact negotiation (section 608(d) of the Act).
This report is the first of three required reports listed above.
The Act requires the identification of all countries that are candidate countries for FY 2017 and the identification of all countries that would be candidate countries but for specified legal prohibitions on assistance. Under the terms of the Act, sections 606(a) and (b) set forth the two income tests countries must satisfy to be candidate countries.
Under the redefined categories, a country will be a candidate country for FY 2017 if it:
Meets one of the following tests:
Has a per capita income that is not greater than the World Bank's lower middle income country threshold for
Has a per capita income that is not greater than the World Bank's lower middle income country threshold for such fiscal year ($4,035 gross national income per capita for FY 2017); but is
And
Is not ineligible to receive U.S. economic assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (the Foreign Assistance Act), by reason of the application of the Foreign Assistance Act or any other provision of law.
Due to the provisions requiring countries to retain their former income classification for three fiscal years, changes from the low income to lower middle income categories or vice versa for FY 2017 will go into effect for FY 2020. Countries transitioning to the upper middle income category do not remain in the candidate pool.
Pursuant to section 606(c) of the Act, the Board identified the following countries as candidate countries under the Act for FY 2017. In so doing, the Board referred to the prohibitions on assistance to countries for FY 2016 under the FY 2016 SFOAA.
Countries that would be considered candidate countries for FY 2017, but are ineligible to receive United States economic assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act by reason of the application of any provision of the Foreign Assistance Act or any other provision of law, are listed below. This list is based on legal prohibitions against economic assistance that apply as of July 22, 2016.
Bolivia is subject to foreign assistance restrictions pursuant to section 706(3) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY 2003 (P.L. 107-228), regarding adherence to obligations under international counternarcotics agreements and other counternarcotics measures.
Burma is subject to foreign assistance restrictions, including restrictions pursuant to section 570 of the FY 1997 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act (P.L. 104-208), which prohibits assistance to the government of Burma until it makes measurable and substantial progress in improving human rights practices and implementing democratic governance.
Eritrea is subject to foreign assistance restrictions, including restrictions due to its status as a Tier 3 country under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. §§ 7101 et seq.).
North Korea is subject to foreign assistance restrictions, including restrictions pursuant to section 7007 of the FY 2016 SFOAA, which prohibits direct assistance to the government of North Korea.
South Sudan is subject to foreign assistance restrictions pursuant to section 7042(i)(2) of the FY 2016 SFOAA, which prohibits, with limited exceptions, assistance to the central government of South Sudan until the Secretary of State certifies and reports to Congress that such government is taking effective steps to end hostilities and pursue good faith negotiations for a political settlement of the internal conflict; provide access for humanitarian organizations; end the recruitment and use of child soldiers; protect freedoms of expression, association, and assembly; reduce corruption related to the extraction and sale of oil and gas; and establish democratic institutions, including accountable military and police forces under civilian authority.
Sudan is subject to foreign assistance restrictions, including restrictions pursuant to section 7042(j) of the FY 2016 SFOAA, which prohibits (with limited exceptions) assistance to the government of Sudan.
Syria is subject to foreign assistance restrictions, including restrictions pursuant to section 7007 of the FY 2016 SFOAA, which prohibits direct assistance to the government of Syria.
Zimbabwe is subject to foreign assistance restrictions, including restrictions pursuant to section 7042(k)(2) of the FY 2016 SFOAA, which prohibits (with limited exceptions) assistance for the central government of Zimbabwe unless the Secretary of State certifies and reports to Congress that the rule of law has been restored, including respect for ownership and title to property, and freedoms of expression, association, and assembly.
Countries identified above as candidate countries, as well as countries that would be considered candidate countries but for the applicability of legal provisions that prohibit U.S. economic assistance, may be the subject of future statutory restrictions or determinations, or changed country circumstances, that affect their legal eligibility for assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act by reason of application of the Foreign Assistance Act or any other provision of law for FY 2017.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of intent to grant partially exclusive license.
This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant a partially exclusive license in the United States to practice the inventions described and claimed in U.S. Patent No. 7,075,295 entitled “Magnetic Field Response Sensor for Conductive Media,” NASA Case No. LAR-16571-1; U.S. Patent No. 7,589,525 entitled “Magnetic Field Response Sensor for Conductive Media,” NASA Case No. LAR-16571-2; and U.S. Patent No. 7,759,932 entitled “Magnetic Field Response Sensor for Conductive Media,” NASA Case No. LAR-16571-3, to Remcal Products having its principal place of business in Warrington, PA. The fields of use may be limited to, but not necessarily limited to, nondestructive evaluation and testing of manufactured products (including molded plastic parts, rubber parts, extruded parts and machined parts) using hand-held probes and/or custom-designed test assemblies. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective partially exclusive license will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
The prospective partially exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR. 404.7. Competing applications completed and received by NASA within fifteen (15) days of the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated partially exclusive license.
Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, NASA Langley Research Center, MS 30, Hampton, VA 23681; (757) 864-3230 (phone), (757) 864-9190 (fax).
Robin W. Edwards, Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, NASA Langley Research Center, MS 30, Hampton, VA 23681; (757) 864-3230; Fax: (757) 864-9190. Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of intent to grant partially exclusive license.
This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant a partially exclusive license in the United States to practice the invention described and claimed in U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 14/702,317 entitled “Foldable and Deployable Power Collection System”, Case Number MFS-33182-1 to Nexolve Corporation, having its principal place of business in Huntsville, Alabama (USA). The fields of use may be limited to field(s) of use in In-Space/High Altitude Power Generation. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective partially exclusive license will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. NASA has not yet made a determination to grant the requested license and may deny the requested license even if no objections are submitted within the comment period.
The prospective partially exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Competing applications completed and received by NASA within fifteen (15) days of the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license.
Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to Mr. James J. McGroary, Chief Counsel/LS01, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812, (256) 544-0013.
Mr. Sammy A. Nabors, Technology Transfer
Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Proposed collection; comments request.
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995:
Comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the National Endowment for the Arts, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 202/395-7316, within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is particularly interested in comments which:
• 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;
• 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
• Could help minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of electronic submission of responses through
The National Endowment for the Arts requests the review of all of its funding application guidelines and grantee reporting requirements. This entry is issued by the National Endowment for the Arts and contains the following information: (1) The title of the form; (2) how often the required information must be reported; (3) who will be required or asked to report; (4) what the form will be used for; (5) an estimate of the number of responses; (6) the average burden hours per response; (7) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the form. This entry is not subject to 44 U.S.C. 3504(h).
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure (25150).
Oct 11, 2016; 9:00 a.m.-5:15 p.m.; Oct 12, 2016; 8:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m.
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Stafford I—Room 1235, Arlington, VA 22230.
Open.
Amy Friedlander, CISE, Division of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1145, Arlington, VA 22230; Telephone: 703-292-8970.
May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
To advise NSF on the impact of its policies, programs and activities in the ACI community. To provide advice to the Director/NSF on issues related to long-range planning.
Updates on NSF wide ACI activities.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Supplemental environmental impact statement; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a final plant-specific supplement, Supplement 57, to NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants” (GEIS), regarding the renewal of Exelon Generation Company, LLC, operating licenses NPF-11 and NPF-18 for an additional 20 years of operation for LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 (LSCS).
Final Supplement 57 to the GEIS is available as of September 1, 2016.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0268 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
William Ford, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 1-800-368-5642, extension 1263; email:
In accordance with section 51.118 of title 10 of the
As discussed in Chapter 5 of the final Supplement 57 to the GEIS, the NRC determined that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for LSCS are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision makers would be unreasonable. This recommendation is based on: (1) The analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) information provided in the environmental report and other documents submitted by Exelon Generation Company, LLC; (3) consultation with Federal, State, local, and Tribal government agencies; (4) the NRC staff's independent environmental review; and (5) consideration of public comments received during the scoping process and on the draft Supplement 57 to the GEIS.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
As noted above, the amendment to the Plans adds the IEX as a Participant. On June 17, 2016, the Commission issued an order granting IEX's application for registration as a national securities exchange.
Under Section III(c) of the Plan, any national securities association or national securities exchange, may become a Participant by (i) subscribing to, and submitting for filing with the Commission, the Plan; (ii) executing all applicable contracts made pursuant to the Plan, or necessary to its participation; (iii) paying the applicable “Participation Fee;” and (iv) paying “provisioning costs to the Processor.” The amendment is effective upon filing with the Commission in accordance with Rule 608 of Regulation NMS.
IEX has satisfied all requirements under the Plans, and has executed a copy of the Plans currently in effect, with the only change being the addition of its name to the CTA and CQ plans. Accordingly, all of the Plan requirements for effecting an amendment to the Plans to add IEX as a Participant have been satisfied.
The foregoing Plan amendments have become effective pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(iii) of the Exchange Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the amendment is consistent with the Exchange 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.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
As noted above, the amendment to the Plan adds the IEX as a Participant. On June 17, 2016, the Commission issued an order granting IEX's application for registration as a national securities exchange.
Under Section I.B of the Plan, any other national securities association or national securities exchange, in whose market Eligible Securities become traded, may become a Participant, provided that said organization executes a copy of the Plan and pays its share of development costs, as specified in the Plan. The amendment is effective upon filing with the Commission in accordance with Rule 608 of Regulation NMS.
IEX has satisfied all requirements under the Plan, and has executed a copy of the Plan currently in effect, with the only change being the addition of its name to the Plan. Accordingly, all of the Plan requirements for effecting an amendment to the Plan to add IEX as a Participant have been satisfied.
The foregoing Plan amendment has become effective pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(iii) of the Exchange Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the amendment is consistent with the Exchange 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.
By the Commission.
The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of August 2016. A copy of each application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
The Commission: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Hae-Sung Lee, Attorney-Adviser, at (202) 551-7345 or Chief Counsel's Office at (202) 551-6821; SEC, Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-8010.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
As noted above, the sole proposed amendment to the Plan is to add the Exchange as a Participant. On June 17, 2016, the Commission issued an order granting IEX's application for registration as a national securities exchange.
Under Section II(C) of the Plan, any entity registered as a national securities exchange or national securities association under the Exchange Act may become a Participant by: (1) Executing a copy of the Plan, as then in effect; (2) providing each then-current Participant with a copy of such executed Plan; and (3) effecting an amendment to the Plan as specified in Section III(B) of the Plan. Section III(B) of the Plan sets forth the process for a prospective new Participant to effect an amendment of the Plan. Specifically, the Plan provides that such an amendment to the Plan may be effected by the new national securities exchange or national securities association by executing a copy of the Plan as then in effect (with the only change being the addition of the new Participant's name in Section II(A) of the Plan); and submitting such executed Plan to the Commission. The amendment will be effective when it is approved by the Commission in accordance with Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, or otherwise becomes effective pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS.
IEX has executed a copy of the Plan currently in effect, with the only change being the addition of its name in Section II(A) of the Plan, and has provided a copy of the Plan executed by IEX to each of the other Participants. IEX has also submitted the executed Plan to the Commission. Accordingly, all of the Plan requirements for effecting an amendment to the Plan to add IEX as a Participant have been satisfied.
The foregoing Plan amendment has become effective pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(iii) of the Exchange Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the amendment is consistent with the Exchange 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.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
As noted above, the sole proposed amendment to the Plan is to add the Exchange as a Participant. On June 17, 2016, the Commission issued an order granting IEX's application for registration as a national securities exchange.
Under Section II(c) of the Plan, any entity registered as a national securities exchange or national securities association under the Exchange Act may become a Participant by: (i) Executing a copy of the Plan, as then in effect; (ii) providing each then-current Participant with a copy of such executed Plan; and (iii) effecting an amendment to the Plan as specified in Section III(b) of the Plan. Section III(b) of the Plan sets forth the process for a prospective new Participant to effect an amendment of the Plan. Specifically, the Plan provides that such an amendment to the Plan may be effected by the new national securities exchange or national securities association by executing a copy of the Plan, as then in effect (with the only changes being the addition of the new Participant's name in Section II(a) of the Plan and the new Participant's single-digit code in Section VI(a)(1) of the Plan) and submitting such executed Plan to the Commission. The amendment will be effective when it is approved by the Commission in accordance with Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, or otherwise becomes effective pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS.
IEX has executed a copy of the Plan currently in effect, with the only changes being the addition of its name in Section II(a) of the Plan and adding its single-digit code in Section VI(a)(1) of the Plan, and has provided a copy of the Plan executed by IEX to each of the other Participants. IEX has also submitted the executed Plan to the Commission. Accordingly, all of the Plan requirements for effecting an amendment to the Plan to add IEX as a Participant have been satisfied.
The foregoing Plan amendment has become effective pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(iii) of the Exchange Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the amendment is consistent with the Exchange 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.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
As noted above, the sole proposed amendment to the Plan is to add the Exchange as a Participant. On June 17, 2016, the Commission issued an order granting IEX's application for registration as a national securities exchange.
Under Section II(C) of the Plan, any entity registered as a national securities exchange or national securities association under the Exchange Act may become a Participant by: (1) Executing a copy of the Plan, as then in effect; (2) providing each then-current Participant with a copy of such executed Plan; and (3) effecting an amendment to the Plan as specified in Section III(B) of the Plan. Section III(B) of the Plan sets forth the process for a prospective new Participant to effect an amendment of the Plan. Specifically, the Plan provides that such an amendment to the Plan may be effected by the new national securities exchange or national securities association by executing a copy of the Plan as then in effect (with the only change being the addition of the new Participant's name in Section II(A) of the Plan); and submitting such executed Plan to the Commission. The amendment will be effective when it is approved by the Commission in accordance with Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, or otherwise becomes effective pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS.
IEX has executed a copy of the Plan currently in effect, with the only change being the addition of its name in Section II(A) of the Plan, and has provided a copy of the Plan executed by IEX to each of the other Participants. IEX has also submitted the executed Plan to the Commission. Accordingly, all of the Plan requirements for effecting an amendment to the Plan to add IEX as a Participant have been satisfied.
The foregoing Plan amendment has become effective pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(iii) of the Exchange Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the amendment is consistent with the Exchange 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.
By the Commission.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to October 31, 2016.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Joan F. Grew, who may be reached on 703-875-5412 or 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.
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Abdiqadir Mumin, also known as Sheikh Abdikadir Mumin, also known as Sheiky Abdulqadir Mumin, also known as Sheikh Abdulqadir Mumin, also known as Abdul Qadir Mumin, also known as Sheikh Abdiqadir Mumin Yusuf, also known as Sheikh Abdulkadir Mumin, also known as Abdul Nadir Mumin, also known as Abdul Qadr Mu'min committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by subparagraph (a)(4) of the State Department Basic Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2651a) and the Presidential Memorandum of July 26, 2016, I hereby delegate to the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, to the extent authorized by law, the authority to submit the recurring report required by Section 1247 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, Pub. L. 114-92, concerning the reasons that the continued implementation of the New START Treaty is in the national security interests of the United States.
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the authorities delegated herein may be exercised by the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, or the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources. Any reference in this delegation of authority to any statute or delegation of authority shall be deemed to be a reference to such statute or delegation of authority as amended from time to time.
This delegation of authority shall be published in the
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its findings (Record of Approval) on the noise compatibility program submitted by the City of Boise, Idaho for the Boise Air Terminal (Gowen Field) under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. (the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and 14 CFR part 150 (Part 150). On May 2, 2016, the FAA determined that the noise exposure maps submitted by the City of Boise for the Boise Air Terminal under Part 150 were in compliance with applicable requirements. On August 24, 2016 the FAA approved the
Scott Eaton, Federal Aviation Administration, Helena Airports District Office, FAA Building, Suite 2, 2725 Skyway Drive, Helena, MT 59602-1213, telephone 406-449-5291. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at this same location.
This notice announces that the FAA has given its overall approval to the noise compatibility program for the Boise Air Terminal, effective August 24, 2016.
Under section 47504 of the Act, an airport operator who has previously submitted a noise exposure map may submit to the FAA a noise compatibility program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within the area covered by the noise exposure maps. The Act requires such programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties including local communities, government agencies, airport users, and FAA personnel.
Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance with the Part 150 regulations is a local program, not a Federal program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for that of the airport proprietor with respect to which measures should be recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of Part 150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards expressed in Part 150 and the Act and is limited to the following determinations:
a. The noise compatibility program was developed in accordance with the provisions and procedures of Part 150;
b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;
c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or intrude into areas preempted by the Federal Government; and
d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator prescribed by law.
Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport noise compatibility program are delineated in Part 150, section 150.5. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an environmental review of the proposed action. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. Where federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must be submitted to the FAA Helena Airports District Office in Helena, Montana. The City of Boise submitted to the FAA on December 21, 2015, the noise exposure maps, descriptions, and other documentation produced during the noise compatibility planning study for the Boise Air Terminal conducted in 2014 and 2015. The Boise Air Terminal noise exposure maps were determined by FAA to be in compliance with applicable requirements on May 2, 2016.
Notice of this determination was published in the
Comments received during the noise compatibility planning public process were addressed in the final noise compatibility program submitted to FAA. In addition, seven sets of
The majority of the comments received during the 60-day comment period for the noise compatibility program regarded military aircraft. It is important to note that the Part 150 study process has no bearing on whether or not, or what type of military jets will be stationed at the Boise Air Terminal in the future. Since the future of the Idaho Air National Guard (IDANG) current A-10 mission is uncertain, the Boise Air Terminal, in conjunction with IDANG, prepared a hypothetical future forecast using the F-15E as a potential replacement for the A-10. However, the Department of the Air Force has not yet determined IDANG's follow-on mission after A-10 divestiture and therefore the sponsor lacked sufficient data to confirm the F-15E as the replacement for the A-10. It was noted in the Part 150 study that there are transient F-15E's that use the Boise Air Terminal throughout the year. Acknowledging this, the sponsor developed the 2015 noise exposure maps to include the transient F-15E Strike Eagles, among many other existing Boise Air Terminal aircraft, in the Noise Model. All measures proposed in the noise compatibility program are based on the current year noise exposure maps and not on future noise exposure maps as they are considered speculative at this time as well. The Record of Approval also does not specifically tie the proposed noise mitigation measures to the 2015 noise exposure maps as shown in the Part 150 Study. When the fleet mix and/or operational levels at the Boise Air Terminal change, the sponsor will update the noise exposure maps to reflect that change in accordance with Part 150 regulations. Furthermore, any change in aircraft by the Department of Defense will require compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The Boise Air Terminal study contains a proposed noise compatibility program comprised of actions designed for phased implementation by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions. It was requested that the FAA evaluate and approve this material as a noise compatibility program as described in section 47504 of the Act. The FAA began its review of the program on December 13, 2015, and was required by a provision of the Act to approve or disapprove the program within 180 days (other than the use of new or modified flight procedures for noise control). Failure to approve or disapprove such program within the 180-day period shall be deemed to be an approval of such program.
The submitted program contained 1 noise abatement measure and 12 noise mitigation/land use compatibility measures recommendations for FAA action. The FAA completed its review and determined that the procedural and substantive requirements of the Act and Part 150 have been satisfied. The overall program therefore, was approved by the FAA on August 24, 2016.
Approval was granted for 7 of the 13 measures and 6 measures were disapproved for the purposes of Part 150. In addition, 22 measures were included in the noise compatibility plan that requested no action by FAA as they were approved in a previous record of approval, were removed from consideration, or disapproved in a previous record of approval. These measures and FAA's associated determinations are summarized in the attachment to the Record of Approval.
These determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of Approval signed by the Airports Division Manager, Northwest Mountain Region on August 24, 2016. The Record of Approval, as well as other evaluation materials and the documents comprising the submittal are available for review at the FAA office listed above and at the Boise Air Terminal (Gowen Field), 3201 Airport Way, Boise, ID 83705. The Record of Approval also will be available on-line at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
First Meeting of the Drone Advisory Committee (DAC).
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the First Meeting of the Drone Advisory Committee (DAC).
The meeting will be held September 16, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST.
The meeting will be held at: The Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1616 Rhode Island Ave NW., Washington, DC 20036.
Al Secen at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for the First Meeting of the Drone Advisory Committee (DAC). The agenda will include the following:
Although the DAC meeting is open to the public, the meeting location has security protocols that require advanced registration. Please email
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of funding opportunity.
This notice announces a funding opportunity and requests grant applications from eligible entities as FHWA continues the Accelerated Innovation Deployment (AID) Demonstration authorized within the Technology and Innovation Deployment Program (TIDP) under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The AID Demonstration provides incentive funding for activities eligible for assistance in any phase of a highway transportation project between project planning and project delivery including: Planning, financing, operation, structures, materials, pavements, environment, and construction that address the TIDP goals. The FHWA expects approximately $10 million to be made available for AID Demonstration in each of Fiscal Years (FY) 2016 through 2020 from amounts authorized under section 6002 of the FAST Act.
The FHWA will use an open, rolling solicitation. The project must be authorized within 6 months of applying for AID Demonstration funding. Completed applications will be evaluated and award determinations made on a rolling basis until the program ends or funding is no longer available. Applications must be submitted through
Only applicants who comply with all submission requirements described in this notice and submit applications through
For questions about the AID Demonstration program discussed herein, contact Mr. Thomas Harman, Director, Center for Accelerating Innovation, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-6377. For legal questions, contact Ms. Seetha Srinivasan, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4099. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. A TDD is available for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing at (202) 366-3993.
Additionally, the notice, answers to questions, requests for clarification, and information about Webinars for further guidance will be posted at:
This notice solicits applications for AID Demonstration. Each section of this notice contains information and instructions relevant to the application process for AID Demonstration grants. The applicant should read this notice in its entirety to submit eligible applications.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from the
On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed into law the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94), which continues the TIDP under 23 U.S.C. 503 to implement accelerated innovation deployment. The TIDP relates to all aspects of highway transportation including planning, financing, operation, structures, materials, pavements, environment, and construction.
Section 503(c)(1) specifies the following TIDP goals: (A) Significantly accelerate the adoption of innovative technologies by the surface transportation community; (B) provide leadership and incentives to demonstrate and promote state-of-the-art technologies, elevated performance standards, and new business practices in highway construction processes that result in improved safety, faster construction, reduced congestion from construction, and improved quality and user satisfaction; (C) construct longer-lasting highways through the use of innovative technologies and practices that lead to faster construction of efficient and safe highways and bridges; (D) improve highway efficiency, safety, mobility, reliability, service life, environmental protection, and sustainability; and (E) develop and deploy new tools, techniques, and practices to accelerate the adoption of innovation in all aspects of highway transportation. The AID Demonstration is one aspect of the multifaceted TIDP approach and provides funding as an incentive for eligible entities to accelerate the implementation and adoption of proven innovation in highway transportation.
Section 6002 of the FAST Act authorized $67,000,000 for TIDP for FY 2016 and $67,500,000 for FY 2017 through 2020. The Funds are subject to the overall Federal-aid obligation limitation and the obligation limitation associated with these funds is available for 4 fiscal years. The amount of TIDP budget authority available in a given year may be less than the amount authorized for that fiscal year. The TIDP funds are available at an 80 percent Federal share, which require a minimum mandatory 20 percent cost share. The Federal share of a project or activity carried out with funds authorized under section 6002 of the FAST Act shall be 80 percent unless expressly specified otherwise by the Act or otherwise determined by the Secretary. [FAST Act § 6002(c)(1)]
The FHWA expects approximately $10 million to be made available for AID Demonstration in each FY 2016 through 2020 from amounts authorized under section 6002 of the FAST Act. The planned award type is a grant that is allocated to a State department of transportation (State DOT) through project authorization, or for Federal Land Management Agencies and tribes through existing agreements with FHWA Federal Lands Highways Division. The FHWA has funding award goals of up to $9 million available to State DOTs per FY and up to $1 million available to Federal Land Management Agencies and tribal governments per
The amount of each award may be up to the full cost of the innovation, but only to a maximum of $1 million. Awards are limited per FY of up to two per State DOT applicant, with up to one award for a State DOT and up to one award for a subrecipient applying through the State DOT, and limited to one award per applicant for Federal Land Management Agencies and tribal governments, subject to the number of eligible applications and the availability of funds.
Award recipients shall submit a final report to FHWA within 6 months of project completion based on the plan described in Section F (
The AID Demonstration provides incentive funding for eligible entities to accelerate the implementation and adoption by the applicant of proven innovation in highway transportation. Section 502(b)(3) of title 23, U.S.C., authorizes the Secretary to award grants to a wide range of entities. The FHWA will provide AID Demonstration grants to eligible State DOTs, Federal Land Management Agencies, and tribal governments. These entities are the most likely to fulfill the deployment goals of the AID Demonstration program, since they are actively engaged in the deployment of new technologies. Consistent with other FHWA funding provided to tribes, any federally recognized tribe identified on the list of “Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs” (published at 77 FR 47868) is eligible to apply for AID Demonstration. Metropolitan planning organizations and local governments may apply through the State DOT as a subrecipient.
The AID Demonstration funds are available for any project activities eligible for assistance under title 23, U.S.C. Eligible activities may involve any phase of a highway transportation project between project planning and project delivery, including planning, financing, operation, structures, materials, pavements, environment, and construction that address the TIDP goals mentioned in Section A (
Applications must be submitted through
The FHWA will use an open, rolling solicitation, until the program ends or funding is no longer available. Project readiness will be treated as primary selection criteria in FHWA's evaluation process. The project must be authorized within 6 months of applying for AID Demonstration funding. An eligible project must be a pilot deployment for the applicant of a proven innovation previously deployed by others and align with the previously described TIDP goals. The innovation must be proven in real-world highway transportation application with documented benefits (in a form that is publicly available or verifiable), not routinely used by the applicant or the subrecipient, and represent a significant improvement from the applicant's or the subrecipient's conventional practice. The FHWA encourages the use of innovations included in the Every Day Counts (EDC) initiative. Please go to the following link to see examples and benefits of EDC innovations:
Initially, to ensure a wide variety of innovations and project types, FHWA will limit awards to three projects per innovation. The FHWA intends to give priority funding consideration to projects using innovations that have not previously received TIDP funding.
In the application, the applicant or the subrecipient must indicate willingness to: (1) Participate in monitoring and assessment activities regarding the effectiveness of the innovation(s) and subsequent technology transfer and information dissemination activities associated with the project; (2) accept FHWA oversight of the project; and (3) conduct a before and after customer satisfaction determination.
The applicant shall include all of the information requested below in their applications. The FHWA may request applicants to supplement the data in the application, but encourages applicants to submit the most relevant and complete information they can provide. The applicant should, to the extent practicable, provide data and evidence of project merits in a form that is publicly available or verifiable.
A complete application will consist of: (1) the Standard Form 424 (SF 424) available from
Applicants should refer to
The applicant or subrecipient shall include the supplemental narrative in the attachments section of the SF 424 mandatory form in
The applicant or subrecipient shall respond to the application requirements described below. The supplemental narrative shall be prepared with standard formatting (
An application shall include information needed to verify that the project meets the statutory eligibility criteria as described in Section C (
For ease of review, the narrative should generally adhere to the following
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The applicant or subrecipient should include contact information requested as part of the SF-424. The FHWA will use this information to contact applicants and to inform parties of FHWA's decision regarding award determination. Contact information should be provided for a direct employee of the applicant. Contact information for a contractor, agent, or consultant of the lead applicant is insufficient for FHWA's purposes.
Applications for AID Demonstration shall be submitted through
Registering with
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
When uploading attachments, applicants should use generally accepted formats such as .pdf, .doc, and .xls. While applicants may imbed picture files such as .jpg, .gif, .bmp, in your files, they should not save and submit the attachment in these formats. Additionally, the following formats will not be accepted: .com, .bat, .exe, .vbs, .cfg, .dat, .db, .dbf, .dll, .ini, .log, .ora, .sys, and .zip.
The FHWA will evaluate AID Demonstration applications in accordance with the evaluation process described below.
The FHWA will establish an evaluation team of technical and professional staff with relevant experience and/or expertise to review each application received by FHWA through
After reviewing the application, the evaluation team may contact the applicant to discuss the application and confirm understanding of the requirements for participation in AID Demonstration. Based on the information collected, the evaluation team will prepare a summary assessment rating the application along with the team's recommendation. The summary assessment and recommendation will be presented to FHWA senior leadership to make a final determination on the approval of the award.
All applications will be evaluated on a rolling basis and be assigned a rating of “Qualified” or “Not Qualified.”
The ratings are as follows:
1.
i. Project ready to authorize within 6 months of applying for AID Demonstration funding, including such information as: Evidence of project milestones, financial capacity, and commitment in order to support project readiness.
ii. project pilots and demonstrates an innovation with a technology readiness level of 7 or higher as defined in Table 1;
iii. project aligns with TIDP goals to accelerate the implementation and delivery of new innovations and technologies that result from highway research and development to benefit all aspects of highway transportation.;
iv. innovation is proven in real-world application with documented benefits, and not routinely used by the applicant or the subrecipient;
v. application describes the innovation's magnitude and scope of impact on the applicant's or the subrecipient's conventional practice;
vi. cost estimate is included that directly supports the requested funding amount;
vii. information provided on performance goals and measures for respective innovation demonstration and deployment activities;
viii. application indicates the applicant's or subrecipient's willingness to:
(1) Participate in monitoring and assessment activities regarding the effectiveness of the innovation(s) and subsequent technology transfer and information dissemination activities associated with the project;
(2) accept FHWA oversight of the project;
(3) conduct before and after customer satisfaction determinations; and
(4) commit to deployment of the innovation as standard practice in the future, if the deployment is successful.
2.
i. Project does not meet the eligibility requirements;
ii. application fails to address one or more of the application requirements;
iii. applicant received AID Demonstration funding within the current fiscal year; or
iv. three AID Demonstration funding awards were already made for the innovation.
Each applicant selected for AID Demonstration funding shall work with FHWA on the development and implementation of a plan to collect information and report on the project's performance with respect to the relevant outcomes that are expected to be achieved through the innovation in the project. Each recipient or subrecipient of AID Demonstration funding shall report on specified performance indicators for its project. Performance indicators will be identified for each project, and will consider the individual project's stated goals as well as resource constraints of the recipient or subrecipient. Performance indicators may include formal goals or targets, will include baseline measures as well as post-project outputs, and will inform the AID Demonstration in working toward best practices, programmatic performance measures, and future decisionmaking guidelines. The recipient or subrecipient shall submit a final report to FHWA within 6 months of project completion which documents the process, benefits, and lessons learned including development and/or refinement of guidance, specifications, or other tools and methods to support rapid adoption of the innovation(s) as standard practice.
For further information concerning this final notice please contact: Mr. Thomas Harman, Director, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Innovative Program Delivery, Center for Accelerating Innovation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., E84-547, Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-6377, or email:
For legal questions, please contact: Ms. Seetha Srinivasan, Attorney-Advisor, Federal Highway Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., E82-328, Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-4099, or email:
Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. A TDD is available for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing at (202) 366-3993.
In addition, FHWA may post answers to questions and requests for clarifications on FHWA's Web site at:
Section 52003 of Pub. L. 112-141; Section 6003 of Pub. L. 114-94; 23 U.S.C. 503.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice provides information regarding FHWA's finding that a Buy America waiver is appropriate for the use of non-domestic iron and steel components in thruster brakes and bearings assemblies for restoration of electrical and mechanical control systems for 12 moveable bridges in the State of New York.
The effective date of the waiver is September 2, 2016.
For questions about this notice, please contact Mr. Gerald Yakowenko, FHWA Office of Program Administration, (202) 366-1562, or via email at
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from the
The FHWA's Buy America policy in 23 CFR 635.410 requires a domestic manufacturing process for any steel or iron products (including protective coatings) that are permanently incorporated in a Federal-aid construction project. The regulation also provides for a waiver of the Buy America requirements when the application would be inconsistent with the public interest or when satisfactory quality domestic steel and iron products are not sufficiently available. This notice provides information regarding FHWA's finding that a Buy America waiver is appropriate for use of non-domestic iron and steel components in thruster brakes and bearings assemblies for restoration of electrical and mechanical controls systems for 12 moveable bridges in the State of New York.
In accordance with Division K, section 122 of the “Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015” (Pub. L. 113-235), FHWA published a notice of intent to issue a waiver on its Web site;
In accordance with the provisions of section 117 of the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-244, 122 Stat. 1572), FHWA is providing this notice as its finding that a waiver of Buy America requirements is appropriate. The FHWA invites public comment on this finding for an additional 15 days following the effective date of the finding. Comments may be submitted to FHWA's Web site via the link provided to the waiver page noted above.
23 U.S.C. 313; Public Law 110-161, 23 CFR 635.410
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The 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 of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments should be received on or before October 31, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at
Please send separate comments for each specific information collection listed below. You must reference the information collection's title, form number, reporting or record-keeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment.
To obtain additional information, or copies of the information collection and instructions, or copies of any comments received, contact Elaine Christophe, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, as part of their continuing effort to reduce
Currently, the IRS is seeking comments concerning the following forms, and reporting and record-keeping requirements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
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 OMB control number. 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 tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its 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, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8282, Donee Information Return (Sale, Exchange, or Other Disposition of Donated Property) and Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contributions.
Written comments should be received on or before October 31, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the forms and instructions should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
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 OMB control number. 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 tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on revisions in 2016 of a currently approved information collection that is proposed for approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The Office of International Affairs within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the revision of the Annual Report of U.S. Ownership of Foreign Securities, including Selected Money Market Instruments. The next such collection is a benchmark survey to be conducted as of December 31, 2016.
Written comments should be received on or before October 31, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Dwight Wolkow, International Portfolio Investment Data Systems, Department of the Treasury, Room 5422 MT, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220. In view of possible delays in mail delivery, you may also wish to send a copy to Mr. Wolkow by email (
Copies of the proposed form and instructions are available at Part II of the Treasury International Capital (TIC) Forms Web page “Forms SHL/SHLA & SHC/SHCA”, at:
The data collection includes large benchmark surveys conducted every five years, and smaller annual surveys conducted in the non-benchmark years. The data collected under an annual survey are used in conjunction with the results of the preceding benchmark survey to make economy-wide estimates for that non-benchmark year. Currently, the determination of who must report in the annual surveys is based primarily on the data submitted during the preceding benchmark survey. The data requested in the annual survey will generally be the same as requested in the preceding benchmark report. Form SHC is used for the benchmark survey of all significant U.S.-resident custodians and end-investors regarding U.S. ownership of foreign securities. In non-benchmark years Form SHCA is used for the annual surveys of primarily the very largest U.S.-resident custodians and end-investors.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
As required by the “Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Personnel Enhancement Act of 2004” (Pub. L. 108-445, dated December 3, 2004) the Department of
Debra Doty, HR Specialist/Title 38 Program Manager, Compensation and Classification Service (055), Office of Human Resources Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (757) 291-6514. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Under 38 U.S.C. 7431(e)(1)(A), not less often than once every two years, the Secretary must prescribe for Department-wide applicability the minimum and maximum amounts of annual pay that may be paid to VHA physicians and dentists. Further, 38 U.S.C. 7431(e)(1)(B) allows the Secretary to prescribe separate minimum and maximum amounts of pay for a specialty or assignment. In construction of the annual pay ranges, 38 U.S.C. 7431(c)(4)(A) requires the consultation of two or more national surveys of pay for physicians and dentists, as applicable, whether prepared by private, public, or quasi-public entities in order to make a general assessment of the range of pays payable to physicians and dentists. Lastly, 38 U.S.C. 7431(e)(1)(C) states amounts prescribed under paragraph 7431(e) shall be published in the
The “Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Personnel Enhancement Act of 2004” (Pub. L. 108-445) was signed by the President on December 3, 2004. The major provisions of the law established a new pay system for Veterans Health Administration (VHA) physicians and dentists consisting of base pay, market pay, and performance pay. While the base pay component is set by statute, market pay is intended to reflect the recruitment and retention needs for the specialty or assignment of a particular physician or dentist at a facility. Further, performance pay is intended to recognize the achievement of specific goals and performance objectives prescribed annually. These three components create a system of pay that is driven by both market indicators and employee performance, while recognizing employee tenure in VHA.
VA identified and utilized salary survey data sources which most closely represent VA comparability in the areas of practice setting, employment environment, and hospital/health care system. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), Hospital and Healthcare Compensation Service (HHCS), Sullivan, Cotter, and Associates (S&C), Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), and the Survey of Dental Practice published by the American Dental Association (ADA) were collectively utilized as benchmarks from which to prescribe annual pay ranges for physicians and dentists across the scope of assignments/specialties within the Department. While aggregating the data, a preponderance of weight was given to those surveys which most directly resembled the environment of the Department.
In constructing annual pay ranges to accommodate the more than 40 physician and dentist specialties that currently exist in the VA system, VA continued the practice of grouping specialties into consolidated pay ranges. This allows VA to use multiple sources that yield a high number of physician salary data which helps to minimize disparities and aberrations that may surface from data involving smaller numbers of physicians and dentists for comparison and from sample change from year to year. Thus, by aggregating multiple survey sources into like groupings, greater confidence exists that the average compensation reported is truly representative. In addition, aggregation of data provides for a large enough sample size and provides pay ranges with maximum flexibility for pay setting for the more than 25,000 VHA physicians and dentists.
In developing the annual pay ranges, a few distinctive principles were factored into the compensation analysis of the data. The first principle is to ensure that both the minimum and maximum salary is at a level that accommodates special employment situations, from fellowships and medical research career development awards to Nobel Laureates, high-cost areas, and internationally renowned clinicians. The second principle is to provide ranges large enough to accommodate career progression, geographic differences, sub-specialization, and other special factors.
Forty-one clinical specialties were reviewed against available, relevant private sector data. The specialties are grouped into four clinical pay ranges that reflect comparable complexity in salary, recruitment, and retention considerations. Two additional pay ranges apply to VHA Chiefs of Staff and physicians and dentists in executive level administrative assignments at the facility, network, or headquarters level.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document August 22, 2016, for publication.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before October 31, 2016.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632-8924 or FAX (202) 632-8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506 (c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before October 31, 2016.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632-8924 or FAX (202) 632-8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506 (c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 3, 2016.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
The statute and regulations describe the process by which a claimant can appeal the decisions made by VBA on a claim for benefits.
VA Form 21P-0970 will be used by the claimant to initiate an appeal by indicating disagreement with a decision issued by a VA Regional Office (RO) specifically related to a claim for VA pension benefits, dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) benefits, burial benefits, and accrued benefits. VA Form 21P-0970 will be the
VA will provide VA Form 21P-0970 to the claimant with the notification letter of the decision in paper form or via hyperlink to VA's Web site. The use of VA Form 21P-0970 will be mandatory when claimants initiate an appeal of a decision on a pension, DIC, burial, or accrued claims for benefits.
Currently, VBA does not have a mandatory form which would enable the claimant to initiate an appeal of a decision made regarding entitlement to pension, DIC, burial, or accrued benefits. As a result, claimants may provide their notice of disagreement in any format. The variety of submissions hampers efforts to identify, and process timely, the claimant's appeal. With the implementation of this collection, the submissions will be standardized, increasing efficiency.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The National Cemetery Administration (NCA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument. This notice solicits comments on information needed to determine a claimant's eligibility in advance of need for burial at a National Cemetery.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before October 3, 2016.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, NCA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of NCA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NCA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 3, 2016.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
VA Form 21P-8416 is used by claimants and beneficiaries to report unreimbursed medical expenses for the purpose of reducing their countable income associated with needs-based benefit programs such as VA Pension and Parents' Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC). Unreimbursed medical expenses are deducted from otherwise countable income to determine eligibility for income-based benefits and the rate payable.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 3, 2016.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission” or “SEC”) is adopting amendments to Form ADV that are designed to provide additional information regarding advisers, including information about their separately managed account business, incorporate a method for private fund adviser entities operating a single advisory business to register using a single Form ADV, and make clarifying, technical and other amendments to certain Form ADV items and instructions. The Commission also is adopting amendments to the Advisers Act books and records rule and technical amendments to several Advisers Act rules to remove transition provisions that are no longer necessary.
Effective October 31, 2016.
Bridget D. Farrell, Senior Counsel, Jennifer Songer, Senior Counsel, Betselot Zeleke, Attorney-Adviser, or Sara Cortes, Assistant Director at (202) 551-6787 or
The Commission is adopting amendments to rules 202(a)(11)(G)-1 [17 CFR 275.202(a)(11)(G)-1], 203-1 [17 CFR 275.203-1], 204-1 [17 CFR 275.204-1], 204-2 [17 CFR 275.204-2], and 204-3 [17 CFR 275.204-3] under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80b] (“Advisers Act” or “Act”),
Form ADV is used by investment advisers to register with the Commission and with the states.
Several of the amendments to Form ADV relate to separately managed accounts. These amendments will require advisers to provide certain aggregate information about separately managed accounts that they advise. Other amendments to Form ADV that we are adopting are designed to improve the depth and quality of information that we collect on investment advisers, facilitate our risk monitoring initiatives and assist our staff in its risk-based examination program. Moreover, because Form ADV is available to the public on our Web site, these amendments also are intended to provide advisory clients and the public additional information regarding registered investment advisers.
We are also adopting amendments to Part 1A that will provide a more efficient method for the registration on one Form ADV of multiple private fund adviser entities operating a single advisory business (“umbrella registration”). The staff has provided guidance to private fund advisers regarding umbrella registration,
The last set of amendments to Part 1A of Form ADV includes clarifying, technical and other amendments that are based on our staff's experience with the form and responding to inquiries from advisers and their service providers. These amendments should make it easier for advisers to understand and complete the form.
Separate from Form ADV, we are adopting amendments to several Advisers Act rules. First, we are adopting amendments to the books and records rule, rule 204-2, to require advisers to make and keep supporting documentation that demonstrates performance calculations or rates of return in any written communications that the adviser circulates or distributes, directly or indirectly, to any person. Advisers also will be required to maintain originals of all written communications received and copies of written communications sent by them related to the performance or rate of return of any or all managed accounts or securities recommendations. As discussed in the Proposing Release, we believe that these amendments will better protect investors from fraudulent performance claims.
We received 50 comment letters on our proposals, most of which were from investment advisers, trade or professional organizations, law firms and consultants.
Several of the amendments to Form ADV that we are adopting are designed to collect more specific information about advisers' separately managed accounts. For purposes of reporting on Form ADV, we consider advisory accounts other than those that are pooled investment vehicles (
Item 5 of Part 1A and Section 5 of Schedule D currently require advisers to provide information about their advisory business including percentages of types of clients and assets managed for those clients. We had proposed to collect information specifically about separately managed accounts, including types of assets held, and the use of derivatives and borrowings in the accounts.
In Section 5.K.(1) of Schedule D advisers will be required to report the approximate percentage of separately managed account regulatory assets under management that are invested in twelve broad asset categories, modified from the ten that were proposed in response to comments received and discussed below. As proposed, advisers with at least $10 billion in regulatory assets under management attributable to separately managed accounts will report, on an annual basis, both mid-year and end of year
While some commenters generally supported the collection of this information,
With respect to the categories of investments listed in Section 5.K.(1), we proposed to require advisers to report the approximate percentage of separately managed account regulatory assets under management invested in ten broad asset categories.
Some commenters also sought clarification about how to report assets that may be classified into multiple categories.
Some commenters expressed concerns about the proposed reporting of “Corporate Bonds—Investment Grade” and “Corporate Bonds—Non-Investment Grade,” based on the proposed definitions of such terms, as they believed that this would require advisers to make subjective decisions about how to classify assets and could result in inconsistent reporting. These commenters requested that the Commission eliminate the reporting requirement, or either provide a more objective definition or permit an adviser to follow and rely on the classifications made by another investment adviser.
In response to these comments, we are removing the proposed definitions of these terms from Form ADV. Given the instruction we have added permitting advisers to use their own consistently applied methodologies to select asset categories, we believe that the definitions are no longer necessary. We recognize that an adviser might reasonably categorize the same or similar assets differently from another adviser. Even with such differences, we believe that this categorization will provide useful information, particularly given the Commission's intended purpose for requiring such reporting, which is to better understand how assets in separately managed accounts are invested across that industry, rather than to impose a standard of creditworthiness for such assets.
Other commenters suggested we provide instructions as to whether advisers need to look through investments in funds or ETFs, for example, and report the underlying asset type.
We are also adopting amendments to add Section 5.K.(2) of Schedule D to Form ADV to require advisers to separately managed accounts to report information regarding the use of borrowings and derivatives in those accounts with modifications from the proposal in response to commenters. These amendments are designed to provide data to assist our staff in identifying and monitoring the use of borrowings and derivatives exposures in separately managed accounts as part of the staff's risk assessment and monitoring programs. Some commenters supported our proposal for the collection of that data.
One commenter suggested requiring reporting on derivatives only if there is a minimum gross notional amount of derivatives.
As proposed, advisers with at least $150 million but less than $10 billion in regulatory assets under management attributable to separately managed accounts would have been required to annually report in Section 5.K.(2)(b) the number of accounts and average borrowings that corresponded to ranges of net asset values and gross notional exposures, as of the date the adviser used to calculate its regulatory assets under management for purposes of the adviser's annual updating amendment. Advisers with at least $10 billion in regulatory assets under management attributable to separately managed accounts would have been required to annually report in Section 5.K.(2)(a) the number of accounts, average borrowings, and average derivatives exposures across six categories of derivatives, based on the same ranges of net asset values and gross notional exposures in Section 5.K.(2)(b), as of the date used by the adviser to calculate its regulatory assets under management for purposes of its annual updating amendment, and six months before that date.
We received a diversity of views about whether the proposed reporting thresholds of at least $150 million in regulatory assets under management attributable to separately managed
Another change we are making to Section 5.K.(2) in response to commenters is to base the reporting of borrowings and derivatives on regulatory assets under management in separately managed accounts, rather than net asset value as proposed. One commenter noted that advisers do not currently characterize their individual client accounts according to net asset values.
Commenters presented a range of concerns and suggestions about the use of gross notional metrics in reporting on Section 5.K.(2). Some commenters supported the use of gross notional metrics for assessing the use of derivatives and borrowings in separately managed accounts,
Many commenters requested that the term “derivatives” be defined as part of this rulemaking.
Finally, we are also revising the proposal in ways that should both alleviate concerns about confidentiality, which we discuss more fully below, and simplify reporting of separately managed account information. First, we reduced the number of categories of gross notional exposure that we proposed in the charts. As proposed, Section 5.K.(2) included four categories of gross notional exposure by which accounts and borrowings were reported. This has been reduced to three categories of gross notional exposure: less than 10%, 10—149% and 150% or more. In addition to reducing the number of categories from four to three, we changed the highest threshold from 200% or more to 150% or more. After consideration of comments received regarding the potential burdens of providing this information, we believe that the use of three categories instead of four and changing the highest threshold from 200% or more to 150% or more will reduce the reporting burden on advisers while providing us with sufficient information regarding the use of derivatives and borrowings by investment advisers in separately managed accounts. In addition, we believe that these modifications provide less granular information than proposed, thereby mitigating some concerns commenters raised regarding confidentiality. We also modified Section 5.K.(2) to remove reporting of the number of separately managed accounts. As proposed, Section 5.K.(2) would have required advisers to report the number of accounts that corresponded to the accounts' net asset value and gross notional exposure. Section 5.K.(2)(a) and (b) now require reporting of regulatory assets under management based on ranges of gross notional exposure of accounts.
As proposed, we are amending Form ADV to require advisers to identify any custodians that account for at least ten percent of separately managed account regulatory assets under management, and the amount of the adviser's regulatory assets under management attributable to separately managed accounts held at the custodian.
We received several comments on this aspect of the proposal. For example, a commenter suggested that we obtain this information from other parties, including custodians.
In addition, some commenters recommended deleting or clarifying the requirement to identify the location of the custodian's office.
While commenters understood our reasons for collecting information on separately managed accounts, many expressed concerns that the new reporting would lead to disclosure of client-identifying information or confidential or proprietary information about investment strategy.
Section 210(a) of the Advisers Act requires information in Form ADV to be publicly disclosed, unless we find that public disclosure is neither necessary nor appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
Some commenters also expressed broader concerns that public disclosure of separately managed account holdings or borrowings and derivatives information would reveal proprietary investment strategies.
We are mindful of commenters' concerns regarding disclosure of client-specific information and related competition concerns.
Additional comments regarding separately managed account reporting in Schedule D included comments about the definition of separately managed account, the treatment of subadvisers, and the reporting requirements when both the registered investment adviser and the separately managed account owner are not United States persons.
First, several commenters sought clarification of the definition of the term “separately managed account” as used in Form ADV.
Second, several commenters requested clarification about how to treat subadviser relationships in reporting separately managed account information, including suggestions that only advisers with discretionary authority report information in these sections.
Further, in response to suggestions that only advisers with discretionary authority should be required to report information in Sections 5.K.(1) and (2), we note that these sections both require responses based on the regulatory assets under management an adviser reports in Item 5.F. Per the instructions to Item 5.F., advisers are already required to consider the role of discretionary authority when calculating regulatory assets under management. Those instructions require that the calculation include only assets over which advisers provide continuous and regular supervisory or management service.
A final suggestion from commenters was to exclude from the reporting requirements any separately managed account held by a non-United States person and managed by an investment adviser whose principal office and place of business is outside the United States.
Commenters suggested that we not require reporting of accounts beneficially owned by those who are not United States persons and managed by advisers whose principal offices and places of business are outside the United States. These commenters noted Item 7.B. of Form ADV and Form PF generally allow advisers whose principal offices and places of business are outside the United States to exclude reporting on funds that are not United States persons, are not offered in the United States, and are not beneficially owned by any United States persons.
In the Proposing Release, we requested comment on whether to require advisers to report on securities lending and repurchase agreements in separately managed accounts.
In addition to the amendments outlined above regarding separately managed accounts, we are adopting, largely as proposed, several new questions and amending existing questions on Form ADV regarding identifying information, an adviser's advisory business, and affiliations. As discussed in the Proposing Release, these items were developed through our staff's experience in examining and monitoring investment advisers, and are designed to enhance our understanding and oversight of investment advisers and to assist our staff in its risk-based examination program.
We are adopting several amendments to Item 1 of Part 1A of Form ADV as proposed to improve certain identifying information that we obtain about advisers. Item 1 currently requires an adviser to provide a Central Index Key number (“CIK Number”) in Item 1.N. only if the adviser is a public reporting company under Sections 12 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Item 1.I. of Part 1A of Form ADV currently asks whether an adviser has one or more Web sites, and Section 1.I. of Schedule D requests the addresses of each Web site. We are amending Item 1.I. largely as proposed to also ask whether the adviser has one or more accounts on social media platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn, and requesting the address of each of the adviser's social media pages in addition to the address of each of the adviser's Web sites in Section 1.I. of Schedule D.
Several commenters were generally supportive of our proposed approach to social media reporting,
A commenter requested that we limit required reporting to accounts on public-facing social media platforms used to promote the adviser's business.
Another commenter requested that we limit required reporting to accounts on social media platforms that promote the adviser's business in the United States or are targeted towards the adviser's U.S. clients.
A few commenters were concerned that the burden on advisers of updating social media information on Form ADV promptly if the information becomes inaccurate in any way would be great, given the frequency of changes in social media platforms and accounts.
Several commenters questioned the utility for investors of social media reporting in Part 1A of Form ADV.
We are amending Item 1.F. of Part 1A of Form ADV and Section 1.F. of Schedule D largely as proposed to expand the information provided about an adviser's offices other than its principal office and place of business. We currently require an adviser to provide contact and other information about its principal office and place of business, and, if an adviser conducts advisory activities from more than one location, about its largest five offices in terms of number of employees.
In addition to providing contact information for the 25 largest offices in terms of number of employees, we are amending Section 1.F. of Schedule D as proposed to require advisers to report each office's CRD branch number (if applicable) and the number of employees who perform advisory functions from each office, identify from a list of securities-related activities the business activities conducted from each office, and describe any other investment-related business conducted from each office. This information will help our staff assess risk, because it provides a better understanding of an investment adviser's operations and the nature of activities conducted in its top 25 offices. This information also will assist our staff in assessing offices that conduct a combination of activities.
Two commenters provided general support for our proposed enhanced reporting of adviser offices.
One commenter expressed concern about our proposal's impact on smaller advisers and suggested that, as an alternative, we require advisers to (a) continue to provide information about their five largest additional offices, (b) report their total number of additional offices, and (c) report additional information only for their additional offices that meet a certain threshold of regulatory assets under management or that engage in certain enumerated practices of interest to the Commission.
One commenter requested that we simplify the reporting of information about additional offices for firms that are dually registered as investment advisers with the Commission and as broker-dealers with FINRA by allowing them to cross-reference to information submitted on their Uniform Branch Office Registration Form filed with FINRA.
Item 1.J. of Form ADV currently requires each adviser to provide the name and contact information for the adviser's chief compliance officer. We proposed amending Item 1.J. to require an adviser to report whether its chief compliance officer is compensated or employed by any person other than the adviser (or a related person of the adviser) for providing chief compliance officer services to the adviser, and if so, to report the name and IRS Employer Identification Number (if any) of that other person. We are adopting the amendments to Item 1.J. largely as proposed, but in addition to related persons of the adviser, as discussed below, advisers will not be required to disclose the identity of the other person compensating or employing the chief compliance officer if that other person is an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 advised by the adviser.
As discussed in the Proposing Release, our examination staff has observed a wide spectrum of both quality and effectiveness of outsourced chief compliance officers and firms.
Two commenters expressed general support for our proposal to identify if chief compliance officers are compensated or employed by other parties for providing chief compliance officer services,
One commenter felt that our inquiry should focus not on the chief compliance officer's other employment and/or compensation, but rather on the details of the compliance program and resources committed to address compliance risk (
One commenter expressed concern that identifying outsourced chief compliance officers would invite additional scrutiny about an adviser's judgment in hiring externally versus internally.
Two commenters agreed with our proposal to specifically exclude situations where the chief compliance officer is paid or employed by a related person of the adviser.
In the Proposing Release, we asked whether we should require information about an adviser's use of third-party compliance auditors. Two commenters supported such disclosure,
We are amending Item 1.O. as proposed to require advisers with assets of $1 billion or more to report their assets within three ranges: (1) $1 billion to less than $10 billion; (2) $10 billion to less than $50 billion; and (3) $50 billion or more.
Two commenters expressed general support for our proposal to require advisers to report their own assets within specified ranges.
In addition to the amendments to Item 5 regarding separately managed accounts discussed above, we are adopting a number of other amendments to Item 5. Item 5 currently requires an adviser to provide approximate ranges for three data points concerning the adviser's business—the number of advisory clients, the types of advisory clients, and regulatory assets under management attributable to client types.
We also are adding to Item 5 as proposed a requirement for advisers to report the number of clients for whom they provided advisory services but do not have regulatory assets under management in order to obtain a more complete understanding of each
Some commenters were generally supportive of our proposal to replace ranges with more precise information.
Some commenters suggested that our proposal to replace ranges with more precise information would heighten the risk of inaccurate reporting on Form ADV.
One commenter expressed skepticism that the amendments would provide new, meaningful information to investors.
One commenter expressed concern that the reporting of precise numbers might reveal confidential client relationships or the amount of regulatory assets under management attributable to specific clients.
Several commenters requested clarification in situations where a client fits into more than one client category.
Some commenters requested more specific definitions for the categories of clients.
We are adopting, largely as proposed, several targeted additions to Item 5 and Section 5 of Schedule D to inform our risk-based exam program and other risk monitoring initiatives. An adviser that elects to report client assets in Part 2A of Form ADV differently from the regulatory assets under management it reports in Part 1A of Form ADV is now required to check a box noting that election.
One commenter asserted that this information would not be meaningful to investors.
In addition, largely as proposed, we are adding a question asking the approximate amount of an adviser's total regulatory assets under management that is attributable to clients that are non-United States persons
Section 5.G.(3) of Schedule D currently requires advisers to report the SEC File Number for registered investment companies and business development companies that they advise. Largely as proposed, we are adding to Section 5.G.(3) a requirement that advisers report the regulatory assets under management of all parallel managed accounts related to a registered investment company (or series thereof) or business development company that they advise.
Some commenters questioned the usefulness of collecting information on parallel managed accounts
Some commenters noted that registered investment companies often have multiple series, each with its own portfolio manager, investment strategy, and holdings; and that the concept of a parallel managed account could only be applied in the registered investment company context on a series-by-series basis.
One commenter felt that advisers would have difficulty interpreting the requirement that a parallel managed account pursue “substantially the same investment objective and strategy” as the relevant investment company or business development company.
One commenter asked for confirmation that the value of derivatives held in a parallel managed account should be calculated using the market value of the derivatives rather than the gross notional value, if that is how the value of the account is reported to the account holder.
Finally, we are amending Item 5, largely as proposed, to obtain additional information concerning wrap fee programs.
Section 5.I.(2) of Schedule D currently requires an adviser to list the name and sponsor of each wrap fee program for which the adviser serves as portfolio manager. We are amending Section 5.I.(2), as proposed, to add questions that require an adviser to provide any SEC File Number and CRD Number for sponsors to those wrap fee programs.
One commenter was generally supportive of our proposed reporting on wrap fee programs, but questioned its usefulness to investors and market participants.
Part 1A, Section 7.A. of Schedule D requires information on an adviser's financial industry affiliations and Section 7.B.(1) of Schedule D requires information on private funds managed by the adviser. We are adopting as proposed amendments to Sections 7.A. and 7.B.(1) of Schedule D that require an adviser to provide identifying numbers (
Two commenters were concerned that, by requiring an adviser to report the PCAOB-assigned number of its auditing firm (if applicable), we are suggesting that using a PCAOB-registered auditing firm is required by the Commission.
In addition, we are adding a question to Section 7.B.(1) of Schedule D to require an adviser to a private fund that qualifies for the exclusion from the definition of investment company under section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (a “3(c)(1) fund”) to report whether it limits sales of the fund to qualified clients, as defined in rule 205-3 under the Advisers Act.
First, we are limiting the question to 3(c)(1) funds because each investor in a 3(c)(7) fund is required to meet the higher “qualified purchaser” standard.
We are adopting, as proposed, amendments to Form ADV that codify umbrella registration for certain advisers to private funds. We are adopting the amendments today because we believe that umbrella registration should be made available to those private fund advisers that are registered with us and operate a single advisory business through multiple legal entities. Umbrella registration is not mandatory, but we believe it will simplify the registration process for these advisers, and provide additional and more consistent data about, and create a clearer picture of, groups of private fund advisers that operate a single advisory business through multiple legal entities. The amendments also will allow for greater comparability across private fund advisers.
As we discussed in the Proposing Release, the Dodd-Frank Act repealed the private adviser exemption that used to be in section 203(b)(3) of the Advisers Act.
For a variety of tax, legal and regulatory reasons, advisers to private funds may be organized as a group of related advisers that are separate legal entities but effectively operate as—and appear to investors and regulators to be—a single advisory business. Although these separate legal entities effectively operate as a single advisory business,
Our staff provided guidance to private fund advisers before the compliance date of the Dodd-Frank Act private fund adviser registration requirements designed to address concerns raised by advisers.
We believe that most advisers that can rely on umbrella registration are doing so, with approximately 743 filing advisers and approximately 2,587 relying advisers filing umbrella registrations.
We are adopting, as proposed, amendments to Form ADV's General Instructions that establish conditions for an adviser to assess whether umbrella registration is available. The conditions we are adopting today are the same as the conditions set forth in the staff's guidance that many investment advisers have relied on since 2012 (except that the staff's guidance also included disclosure conditions for Form ADV, the substance of which is covered elsewhere in this Release).
1. The filing adviser and each relying adviser advise only private funds and clients in separately managed accounts that are qualified clients (as defined in rule 205-3 under the Advisers Act) and are otherwise eligible to invest in the private funds advised by the filing adviser or a relying adviser and whose accounts pursue investment objectives and strategies that are substantially similar or otherwise related to those private funds;
2. The filing adviser has its principal office and place of business in the United States and, therefore, all of the substantive provisions of the Advisers Act and the rules thereunder apply to the filing adviser's and each relying adviser's dealings with each of its clients, regardless of whether any client or the filing adviser or relying adviser providing the advice is a United States person;
3. Each relying adviser, its employees and the persons acting on its behalf are subject to the filing adviser's supervision and control and, therefore, each relying adviser, its employees and
4. The advisory activities of each relying adviser are subject to the Advisers Act and the rules thereunder, and each relying adviser is subject to examination by the Commission; and
5. The filing adviser and each relying adviser operate under a single code of ethics adopted in accordance with rule 204A-1 under the Advisers Act and a single set of written policies and procedures adopted and implemented in accordance with rule 206(4)-(7) under the Advisers Act and administered by a single chief compliance officer in accordance with that rule.
The conditions are designed to limit eligibility for umbrella registration to groups of private fund advisers that operate as a single advisory business. For purposes of umbrella registration, we consider the following factors as indicia of a single advisory business: Commonality of advisory services and clients; a consistent application of the Advisers Act and the rules thereunder to all advisers in the business; and a unified compliance program. The conditions that we are adopting today are designed to demonstrate these factors. Condition 1 limits eligibility for umbrella registration to private fund advisers with a commonality of advisory services and clients. Conditions 2 and 4 are designed to provide assurance that our staff has access to and can readily examine the filing and relying advisers and that the Advisers Act and the rules thereunder fully apply to all advisers under the umbrella registration and clients of those advisers. Conditions 3 and 5 are designed to provide assurance that the filing and relying advisers are subject to a unified compliance program. Based on our experience, we believe that the conditions, when taken together, are a strong indication of the existence of a single private fund advisory business operating through the use of multiple legal entities.
In addition, we are amending the General Instructions as proposed to provide advisers using umbrella registration directions on completing Form ADV for the filing adviser and each relying adviser, including details for filing umbrella registration requests and the timing of filings and amendments in connection with an umbrella registration.
We also are adopting as proposed a new schedule to Part 1A—Schedule R—that must be filed for each relying adviser.
We received multiple comment letters regarding our proposal to codify umbrella registration, the vast majority of which expressed support for umbrella registration.
Many commenters encouraged us to permit umbrella registration for non-
Two commenters suggested permitting umbrella registration for an organization where all of the advisers have their principal office and place of business outside of the United States.
Several commenters
Certain commenters questioned the status of a set of Frequently Asked Questions
Two commenters disagreed with Condition 5's requirement that the filing adviser and each relying adviser operate under a single code of ethics adopted in accordance with rule 204A-1 under the Advisers Act and a single set of written policies and procedures adopted and implemented in accordance with rule 206(4)-(7) under the Advisers Act and administered by a single chief compliance officer in accordance with that rule.
Several commenters disagreed with limiting umbrella registration eligibility to advisers operating a single private fund advisory business as described in Condition 1.
Several commenters took issue with the proposal's requirement to determine asset-based eligibility for umbrella registration on an entity-by-entity, rather than consolidated, basis.
Some commenters disagreed with the requirement contained in Condition 1 that separately managed accounts be owned by qualified clients.
We also received several comments on the new amendments to Form ADV to accommodate umbrella registration. Two commenters generally supported the benefits of new Schedule R, which requires separate reporting of indirect and direct ownership for relying advisers (similar to current Schedules A and B of Form ADV).
We are adopting, largely as proposed, several amendments to Form ADV that are designed to clarify the form and its instructions. As noted in the Proposing Release, we believe these amendments to Form ADV will make the filing process clearer and more efficient for advisers and increase the reliability and the consistency of information provided by investment advisers. More reliable and consistent information will improve our staff's ability to interpret, understand, and place in context the information provided by advisers, allow our staff to make comparisons across investment advisers and improve the risk assessment and examination program. Many of these amendments are derived from questions frequently received by our staff. Except where noted, we did not receive comments on these amendments.
Item 2.A. of Part 1A of Form ADV requires an adviser to select the basis upon which it is eligible to register with the Commission, and Item 2.A.(9) includes as a basis that the adviser is eligible for registration because it is a “newly formed adviser” relying on rule 203A-2(c) because it expects to be eligible for SEC registration within 120 days.
Item 4 of Part 1A of Form ADV addresses successions of investment advisers, and the Instructions to Item 4 provide that a new organization has been created under certain circumstances, including if the adviser has changed its structure or legal status (
Item 7 of Part 1A of Form ADV and corresponding sections of Schedule D require advisers to report information about their financial industry affiliations and the private funds they advise. We are adopting several technical amendments to Item 7. As proposed, we are revising Item 7.A., which requires advisers to check whether their related persons are within certain categories of the financial industry, to clarify that advisers should not disclose in response to this item that some of their employees perform investment advisory functions or are registered representatives of a broker-dealer, because this information is required to be reported on Items 5.B.(1) and 5.B.(2) of Part 1A, respectively. Items 5.B.(1) and 5.B.(2) request information about an adviser's employees. Adding this text to Form ADV should assist filers in filling out the form as well as provide more accurate data to us and the general public.
Item 7.B. of Part 1A of Form ADV asks whether the adviser serves as adviser to any private fund. Section 7.B.(1) of Schedule D requires advisers to provide information about the private funds they manage. We are adding text to Item 7.B. clarifying that Section 7.B.(1) of Schedule D should not be completed if another SEC-registered adviser or SEC exempt reporting adviser reports the information required by Section 7.B.(1) of Schedule D. Currently the instructions only refer to another adviser. We are also adopting, as proposed, several amendments to Section 7.B.(1) of Schedule D. Question 8 of Section 7.B.(1) currently asks whether the private fund is a “fund of funds,” and if it is, whether the private fund invests in funds managed by the adviser or a related person of the adviser. Below those two questions there is a note informing advisers when they should answer yes to the first question regarding whether the private fund is a “fund of funds.” We are moving the note to directly after Question 8.(a).
Question 10 of Section 7.B.(1) of Schedule D asks the adviser to identify the category of the private fund. As proposed, we are deleting text in Question 10 that directs advisers to refer to the underlying funds of a fund of funds when selecting the type of fund, in order to reconcile differences with Form PF, which permits advisers to disregard any private fund's equity investments in other private funds.
We are adopting revisions to Question 23.(a)(2) as proposed. Currently, this question requires an adviser to check a box to indicate whether the private fund's financial statements are prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”).
Based on inquiries from filers, we are adopting the proposed amendments to Item 8 with a modification to clarify that newly-formed advisers should answer questions in the item based on the types of participation and interest they expect to engage in during the next year. In the Proposing Release, we did not specify that the instruction was for newly-formed advisers, and commenters expressed concern that the proposal
Item 8.B.(2) of Part 1A of Form ADV currently asks whether the adviser or any related person of the adviser recommends the purchase of securities to advisory clients for which the adviser or any related person of the adviser serves as underwriter, general or managing partner, or purchaser representative.
Item 8.H. of Part 1A of Form ADV asks whether the adviser or any related person of the adviser, directly or indirectly, compensates any person for client referrals. We are revising Item 8.H. as proposed to break the question into two parts to increase our understanding of compensation for client referrals. Revised Item 8.H.(1) will cover compensation to persons other than employees for client referrals.
Two commenters thought that the proposed amendment to Item 8.H was highly subjective and needed additional guidance.
Section 9.C. of Schedule D requests information about independent public accountants that perform surprise examinations in connection with the Advisers Act custody rule, rule 206(4)-2. We are adopting two changes to Section 9.C. of Schedule D as proposed. First, we are adding text requiring an adviser to provide the PCAOB-assigned number of the adviser's independent public accountant. This will improve our staff's ability to cross-reference information submitted through other systems and evaluate compliance with the custody rule.
We received requests from multiple commenters to amend Item 9 of Part 1A and Section 9.C. of Schedule D related to custody.
Item 11 of Part 1A of Form ADV requires registered advisers and exempt reporting advisers to provide information about their disciplinary history and the disciplinary history of their advisory affiliates. Those advisers who report an event for purposes of Item 11 are directed to complete a Disclosure Reporting Page (“DRP”) to provide the details of the event. DRPs can be removed from Form ADV under certain circumstances, including when “the adviser is registered or applying for registration with the SEC and the event was resolved in the adviser's or advisory affiliate's favor.”
Together with the amendments to Part 1A, we are also adopting, as proposed, conforming amendments to the General Instructions and the Glossary for Form ADV. As discussed above, we are amending the General Instructions to include instructions regarding umbrella registration. As proposed, we are also removing outdated references to
Where applicable, we are making technical revisions, as proposed, to specify that an adviser must “apply for registration” (rather than simply “register”) to more accurately reflect the rule text. As proposed, we are also deleting text in the instructions related to Item 1.O. because this text is going to appear directly in the corresponding section of Part 1 of Form ADV. We are adding text clarifying that a change in information related to Item 1.O. does not necessitate a prompt other-than-annual amendment (as changes to Item 1 otherwise do).
We have also received numerous comment letters recommending additional amendments to clarify other sections of Form ADV.
We are adopting two amendments to the Advisers Act books and records rule, rule 204-2, largely as proposed, that will require advisers to maintain additional materials related to the calculation and distribution of performance information.
Rule 204-2(a)(16) currently requires advisers that are registered or required to be registered with us to maintain records supporting performance claims in communications that are distributed or circulated to ten or more persons.
We are also adopting amendments to rule 204-2(a)(7). Rule 204-2(a)(7) currently requires advisers that are registered or required to be registered with us to maintain certain categories of written communications received and copies of written communications sent by such advisers.
Several commenters expressed general support for the proposed amendments to the books and records rule,
Based on a comment we received,
We are adopting the rest of the amendments to rule 204-2 as proposed. While we appreciate the concerns raised by commenters, we continue to believe the veracity of performance information is important regardless of whether it is a personalized client communication or in an advertisement sent to ten or more persons. As noted in the Proposing Release, a recent enforcement action demonstrated to us the disadvantages of not requiring investment advisers to maintain records forming the basis of performance calculations or performance communications sent to individuals.
We believe these records will be useful in examining and evaluating adviser performance claims. Investors will benefit to the extent that the amendments reduce the incidence of misleading or fraudulent advertising and communications. For these reasons, we are adopting the amendments to the Adviser Act books and records rule, rule 204-2, as proposed.
These amendments will apply to communications circulated or distributed after the compliance date of amended rule 204-2. Advisers that circulate or distribute communications after the compliance date that include performance information, including information on performance that predates the effective date of these amendments, will be required to maintain materials listed in rule 204-2(a)(16) that demonstrate the calculation of the performance.
We are adopting the proposed technical amendments to several rules under the Advisers Act and withdrawing transition rule 203A-5 under the Advisers Act. Consistent with the proposal, we are removing transition provisions from rules where the transition process is complete. Three of the provisions were added as part of the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act. Two of the provisions were added when we amended Form ADV and several Advisers Act rules to require advisers to electronically file their brochures with the Commission. One commenter specifically supported removal of the transition provisions.
The Dodd-Frank Act amended section 203A of the Advisers Act to prohibit from SEC registration “mid-sized” advisers that generally have assets under management of between $25 million and $100 million.
Section 409 of the Dodd-Frank Act created a new exclusion from the definition of “investment adviser” in section 202(a)(11)(G) of the Advisers Act for family offices. The Commission adopted rule 202(a)(11)(G)-1
Rule 203-1 outlines the procedures for advisers to register with the Commission. Paragraph (e) of the rule was added as part of the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act and allowed companies that were relying on the rescinded “private adviser” exemption
Rule 203-1 and Rule 204-1 were amended in 2010 to provide transition periods for advisers to file narrative brochures required by Part 2A of Form ADV electronically with the Investment Adviser Registration Depository (“IARD”).
The effective date of the amendments to rules 204-2, 202(a)(11)(G)-1, 203-1, 204-1 and 204-3, and the amendments to Form ADV is October 31, 2016. Rule 203A-5 is removed effective October 31, 2016.
Several commenters requested a compliance date of at least one year after adoption.
Our amendments to the books and records rule, 275.204-2, will apply to communications circulated or distributed after October 1, 2017. As discussed in Section II.B.(1), advisers that circulate or distribute communications after October 1, 2017 that include performance information, including information on performance that predates that date, will be required to maintain the materials listed in 275.204-2(a)(16) that demonstrate the calculation of the performance.
We are sensitive to the benefits and costs imposed by our rules and understand that there will be costs associated with complying with the amendments. The following economic analysis identifies and considers the benefits and costs—including the effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation—that will result from the amendments to Form ADV and the amendments to and rescission of certain rules under the Investment Advisers Act. The economic effects considered in adopting the amendments are discussed below.
We are adopting amendments to Form ADV and the Advisers Act books and records rule 204-2, and technical amendments to several other rules under the Advisers Act. In summary, and as discussed in greater detail in Section II. above, we are adopting the following amendments to Form ADV and Advisers Act rules:
• Amendments to Form ADV designed to fill certain data gaps and enhance current reporting provided by investment advisers in order to improve the depth and quality of the information we collect on investment advisers and to facilitate our risk monitoring objectives;
• Amendments to Form ADV to incorporate “umbrella registration” for private fund advisers;
• Clarifying, technical and other amendments to Part 1A of Form ADV;
• Amendments to the Advisers Act books and records rule to require advisers to make and keep supporting documentation that demonstrates performance calculations or rates of return in any written communications that the investment adviser circulates or distributes; and
• Technical amendments to several rules under the Advisers Act to remove transition provisions that are no longer necessary.
As discussed in the Proposing Release, we rely on information reported by investment advisers on Form ADV to monitor trends, assess emerging risks, inform policy choices and rulemaking, and assist our staff in examination and enforcement efforts.
The regulatory regime as it exists today for investment advisers serves as the economic baseline against which the costs and benefits, as well as the impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation of the amendments are discussed. The baseline includes the current requirement for investment advisers to file Form ADV, the staff guidance regarding a filing adviser filing a single Form ADV on behalf of itself and each relying adviser,
Based on IARD system data as of May 16, 2016, approximately 12,024 investment advisers are registered with the Commission, and 3,248 exempt reporting advisers file reports with the Commission. Approximately 8,718 investment advisers registered with the Commission (73%) reported assets under management attributable to separately managed account clients. Of those 8,718 advisers, approximately 2,538 advisers reported regulatory assets under management attributable to separately managed account clients of at least $500 million and less than $10 billion and approximately 545 advisers reported regulatory assets under management attributable to separately managed account clients of at least $10 billion.
As we explained in the Proposing Release, we have sought, where possible, to quantify the costs, benefits, and effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation expected to result from the amendments to Form ADV and Investment Advisers Act rules, and reasonable alternatives.
Certain amendments to Form ADV are designed to address potential gaps in information, such as information about advisers' separately managed accounts, and obtain additional information on areas such as social media, additional offices, foreign clients, and wrap fee accounts. We believe this information will improve the depth and quality of information that we collect on investment advisers, which will assist the Commission in our oversight activities and clients and potential clients in assessing advisers.
As noted above and in the Proposing Release, the investment adviser regulatory regime currently in effect serves as the economic baseline against which the costs and benefits, as well as the impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation, of the amendments to Form ADV are discussed. Investment advisers use Form ADV to register with the Commission and with the states. Once registered, an investment adviser is required to file an annual amendment within 90 days of the end of its fiscal year, and more frequently if required by the instructions to Form ADV.
As discussed in Section II. above, we believe the amendments to Form ADV will improve our ability to oversee investment advisers and identify potential risks by increasing the amount, consistency, and reliability of the information disclosed by investment advisers, which will enhance our staff's ability to effectively carry out the risk-based examination program and other risk monitoring activities, and may improve investor protection by informing policy choices and focusing examination activities. The amendments to Form ADV will address certain data gaps by requiring advisers to report additional information. Clients and potential clients may indirectly benefit to the extent that the amendments improve our oversight of investment advisers.
The enhanced reporting requirements also may directly improve the ability of clients and potential clients of investment advisers to make more informed decisions about the selection and retention of investment advisers.
We are adopting amendments to Form ADV that will require investment advisers to report information regarding separately managed accounts, which are managed for clients other than pooled investment vehicles.
We do not currently collect information from investment advisers specific to separately managed accounts, but we currently collect detailed information about an adviser's registered investment company and private fund clients. The absence of detailed information about separately managed accounts limits the ability of our staff to understand, monitor and oversee the investment advisers that advise these accounts and recognize the risk exposures relating to these accounts. The newly reported information on Form ADV regarding separately managed accounts is intended to enhance the ability of our staff to effectively carry out our risk-based examination program and other risk-monitoring activities, as it does with other information on ADV and other filings by the Commission. The additional information regarding separately managed accounts will also assist us in addressing regulatory issues and identifying areas for additional examination and enforcement activities.
The additional information investment advisers will file relating to separately managed accounts will be
We revised certain items on the form to address commenters' concerns regarding the potential disclosure of confidential or proprietary information. As proposed, Item 5.D. would have required investment advisers to report the number of clients even for investment advisers that manage fewer than five accounts. In addition, under the proposed amendments, Section 5.K.(2) of Schedule D would have required investment advisers to report the number of accounts and the net asset value of the accounts.
In the Proposing Release, we also discussed other alternatives. For example, we could have required different information regarding separately managed account regulatory assets under management such as information at different time intervals or with different asset categories. We have determined not to require reporting at a higher frequency or in a more granular manner, because, as discussed above, we believe that the information we are requiring today will appropriately enhance our staff's ability to effectively carry out our risk-based examination program and other risk assessment and monitoring activities, and that more frequent or granular reporting requirements may increase the costs to investment advisers to report the information. One commenter suggested as an alternative a separate form for separately managed account reporting that would be filed on a confidential basis, but, as discussed above, we believe that given the changes discussed above, we have mitigated concerns about client confidentiality.
We proposed to require at least some information about separately managed accounts from all advisers, and additional information from advisers with at least $150 million in regulatory assets under management. In response to commenters who requested modifications to alleviate potential reporting burdens on smaller advisers relative to the proposal, we are adopting amendments that require less information about separately managed accounts than what was proposed for investment advisers managing at least $150 and less than $500 million in regulatory assets.
Another alternative would be to collect different information regarding derivatives in separately managed accounts. For example, commenters raised concerns about the utility of gross notional exposure as a measure of derivative risk exposures. Several commenters stated that gross notional metrics are not accurate measures of risk or leverage,
We are also adopting, as proposed, amendments that will require investment advisers to report the identity of the custodians that account for at least ten percent of each adviser's total separately managed account regulatory assets under management, and the amount held at such custodians. As discussed in the Proposing Release,
In addition to information regarding separately managed accounts, we are also adopting amendments to collect additional information about the business of investment advisers and other additional identifying information. For example, we are adopting amendments to require investment advisers to disclose information regarding their use of social media platforms. We are also adopting amendments to request additional information about an adviser's participation in and assets under management attributable to wrap fee programs. Other amendments include replacing ranges with more precise information about the number of advisory clients and the amount of assets under management, the total number of offices that conduct investment advisory business, and information regarding each adviser's top twenty-five largest offices in terms of numbers of employees. For several items we are requiring additional identifying information. The additional identifying information includes the CIK Numbers for all advisers that have obtained one or more such numbers, PCAOB-assigned numbers for auditing firms, and the SEC file number and the CRD number for sponsors of wrap fee programs.
We believe the additional information describing the adviser's business and the additional identifying information will be useful to the risk assessment, examination, and oversight of investment advisers. For example, the information regarding social media platforms will improve our understanding of how advisers use social media to communicate with current and potential clients. The additional identifying information will improve the ability of our staff and other current and future users of Form ADV information to cross-reference information from Form ADV with information from filings and other sources to investigate and obtain a more complete understanding of the business and relationships of investment advisers, and improve our oversight of investment advisers. In addition, to the extent that current and future investment advisory clients are interested in the information, the information may improve their ability to make informed decisions about the selection and retention of investment advisers.
Several commenters expressed concern that the additional information describing the advisory business and the additional identifying information would increase the burden on investment advisers to file Form ADV.
Alternatives to the amendments regarding disclosure of additional information about advisers include the disclosure of different information, more information, or less information on topics such as social media or advisers' offices.
Another alternative to the amendments to Form ADV would be for us not to require investment advisers to report additional information but instead for us to undertake targeted examinations of investment advisers. We believe it is more efficient to compile information about advisers that can then be utilized to identify specific advisers for examinations. An absence of information about advisers also would reduce our ability to identify industry trends and assess risks.
The amendments that will require investment advisers to provide additional information about certain aspects of their business will impose additional costs, at least initially, for investment advisers to file Form ADV, but we believe based on our experience that much of the information we are requiring is readily available because it is used by investment advisers to conduct their business. Costs will vary across advisers, depending on the nature and size of an adviser's business.
To the extent possible, we have attempted to quantify the costs of these amendments to Form ADV. Certain commenters questioned the cost estimates of the amendments to Form ADV, and some commenters noted that advisers will have to create new systems or processes to capture the additional information required and that the Commission underestimated these costs.
The amendments to Form ADV that will incorporate the concept of umbrella registration and establish a method on Form ADV for certain private fund advisers to use umbrella registration will simplify, and therefore make more efficient the filing procedures for these advisers and provide greater certainty about the availability of umbrella registration. The amendments will also improve the consistency and quality of the information that private fund advisers disclose about their business and provide a more complete picture of groups of private fund advisers that operate as a single business, thus allowing for greater comparability across private fund advisers that rely on umbrella registration.
Several commenters suggested that the Commission expand the eligibility for umbrella registration to even more advisers. For example, many commenters recommended expanding eligibility for umbrella registration to non-U.S. filing advisers,
For purposes of the PRA, we estimate that each adviser that files Schedule R will incur average costs of approximately $255,
The clarifying, technical and other amendments to Form ADV will make the filing process clearer and therefore more efficient for advisers, and increase the reliability and the consistency of information provided by investment advisers. More reliable and consistent information will improve our staff's ability to interpret and evaluate the information provided by advisers, make comparisons across investment advisers, and better identify the investment advisers that may need additional outreach or examination. To the extent the clarifying and technical amendments we adopt today would make Form ADV easier to understand and complete, the amendments will decrease future filing costs, especially for those investment advisers registering with us for the first time.
As proposed, we are adding questions to Form ADV that request an entity's legal entity identifier, if any.
We do not believe that the clarifying, technical and other amendments to Form ADV will result in any additional costs for investment advisers and could result in some cost savings to the extent that advisers have fewer questions to research when completing the form. We have identified provisions of Form ADV that have caused confusion among filers in the past or that have resulted in inconsistent or unreliable information. As we discussed above, we believe that the clarifications and revisions to the questions and instructions of Form ADV will increase the efficiency of investment advisers to disclose information, and our ability to oversee investment advisers. Finally, given the nature of the clarifying, technical and other amendments to Form ADV that we are adopting today, we do not believe that these amendments will have an impact on capital formation or competition in the asset management industry or the markets in general.
We believe the amendments to Form ADV will have a limited economic effect on exempt reporting advisers, including on their costs.
As discussed above, we are adopting amendments to the Advisers Act books and records rule, and technical amendments to several other rules to remove transition provisions where the transition process is complete. The discussion below focuses on the amendments to the Advisers Act books and records rule, because the technical amendments are clarifying or ministerial in nature and therefore should have little, if any, economic effects.
The amendments to rule 204-2 will require investment advisers to maintain additional materials related to the calculation and distribution of performance information. The amendments to rule 204-2(a)(16) will require each adviser to maintain the materials listed in rule 204-2(a)(16) that demonstrate the calculation of the performance or rate of return in any communication that the adviser circulates or distributes, directly or indirectly, to any person, rather than ten or more persons as currently required by the rule. The amendments to rule 204-2(a)(7) will require each adviser to maintain originals of all written communications received and copies of written communications sent by the adviser relating to the performance or rate of return of any or all managed accounts or securities recommendations. We believe, based on our staff's experience, and several commenters agreed, that most investment advisers currently maintain the information that will be required to be maintained under amended rule 204-2.
As noted above, the regulatory regime as it exists today for investment advisers serves as the economic baseline against which the costs and benefits, as well as the impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation, of the amendments to the Advisers Act books and records rule (rule 204-2) will be evaluated. The parties that will be directly affected by the amendments to rules under the Advisers Act include: Investment advisers registered with the Commission; the Commission; and current and future investment advisory clients. As discussed above, approximately 12,024 investment advisers are currently registered with the Commission.
The amendments to the Advisers Act books and records rule (rule 204-2) will benefit the clients and prospective clients of investment advisers by improving our ability to oversee investment advisers and making available to our examination staff all records necessary to evaluate performance information.
The amendments to the books and records rule will provide our enforcement and examination staff with additional information to review an adviser's performance communications, regardless of the number of clients or prospective clients that receive performance communications. The rule amendments may increase investor protection by increasing the disincentive for misleading or fraudulent communications, which may reduce incidents of fraud. In addition, investors may benefit from the amendments to the recordkeeping rule as these records will assist our staff in uncovering fraudulent or misleading communications regarding performance.
As we discussed in the Proposing Release, to the extent that the amendments to the rule reduce misleading or fraudulent communications, the competitive position of investment advisers could be improved because clients and potential clients will receive more accurate information regarding an adviser's performance and thus will be better able to differentiate among advisers.
An alternative suggested by several commenters would be to exclude from the rule one-on-one communications that are “customized responses from investors or one-on-one communications with sophisticated investors or clients” about their own account performance.
Several commenters felt the proposed amendments would be unnecessary and a burden on investment advisers. Some raised concerns regarding the potential burden to comply with the amendments to rule 204-2,
We estimate that, for purposes of the PRA, advisers will incur an aggregate cost of approximately $1,071,338 per year for the total hours advisory personnel will spend in complying with the amended recordkeeping requirements.
We expect that these costs will vary among firms, depending on a number of factors, including the degree to which advisers already maintain correspondence, performance information, and the inputs and worksheets used to generate performance information. Compliance costs also will vary depending on the degree to which performance figure determination and the recordkeeping process is automated, and the amount of updating to the adviser's recordkeeping policy that will be required.
The amendments that we are adopting today contain “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”).
Form ADV (OMB Control No. 3235-0049) is the two-part investment adviser registration form. Part 1 of Form ADV contains information used primarily by Commission staff, and Part 2 is the client brochure. We are not adopting changes to Part 2. We use the information to determine eligibility for registration with us and to manage our regulatory and examination programs. Clients use certain of the information to determine whether to hire or retain an adviser. The collection of information is necessary to provide advisory clients, prospective clients, and the Commission with information about the adviser and its business, conflicts of interest and personnel. Rule 203-1 under the Advisers Act requires every person applying for investment adviser registration with the Commission to file Form ADV. Rule 204-4 under the
These collections of information are found at 17 CFR 275.203-1, 275.204-1, 275.204-4 and 275.279.1 and are mandatory. Responses are not kept confidential. The respondents are investment advisers registered with the Commission or applying for registration with the Commission and exempt reporting advisers. Based on IARD system data as of May 16, 2016, approximately 12,024 investment advisers are registered with the Commission, and 3,248 exempt reporting advisers file reports with the Commission.
The currently approved total annual aggregate burden estimate for all advisers completing, amending and filing Form ADV (Part 1 and Part 2) with the Commission is 154,402 hours with a monetized cost of $36,670,427. This collection is based on: (i) Total annual collection of information burden for SEC-registered advisers to file and complete Form ADV (Part 1 and Part 2), including private fund reporting, plus the burden associated with amendments to the form, preparing brochure supplements and delivering codes of ethics to clients; and (ii) the total annual collection of information burden for exempt reporting advisers to file and complete the required items of Part 1A of Form ADV, including the private fund reporting, plus the burden associated with amendments to the form.
As discussed above, we are adopting amendments to Form ADV that are designed to provide additional information about investment advisers and their clients, including clients in separately managed accounts, provide for umbrella registration for private fund advisers and clarify and address technical and other issues in certain Form ADV items and instructions. The amendments we are adopting will increase the information requested in Part 1A of Form ADV, and we expect that this will correspondingly increase the average burden on an adviser filing Form ADV.
As discussed in Sections II.A. and II.B. of this Release, we received several comments that addressed whether the amendments to Form ADV and Rule 204-2 are necessary, whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and whether we could further minimize the burden. Certain commenters addressed the accuracy of our burden estimates for the proposed collections of information, suggesting in general that our estimates were too low.
We discuss below, in three subsections, the estimated revised collection of information requirements for Form ADV: First, we provide estimates for the revised burdens resulting from the amendments to Part 1A; second, we determine how those estimates will be reflected in the annual burden attributable to Form ADV; and third, we calculate the total revised burdens associated with Form ADV. The paperwork burdens of filing an amended Form ADV, Part 1A will vary among advisers, depending on factors such as the size of the adviser, the complexity of its operations, and the number or extent of its affiliations.
As a result of the differing burdens on advisers to complete Form ADV, we have divided the effect of the amendments to the form into three subsections; first we address the change to the collection of information for registered advisers as a result of our amendments to Part 1A of Form ADV excluding those changes related to private funds; second, we discuss the amendments to Form ADV related to registered advisers to private funds, including the amendments to Section 7.B. of Schedule D and the new Schedule R that will implement umbrella registration; and third, we address the amendments to Form ADV affecting exempt reporting advisers.
We are adopting amendments to Part 1A, some of which are merely technical changes or very simple in nature, and others that will require more time for an adviser to prepare a response. Advisers should have ready access to all the information necessary to respond to the items we are adopting today in their normal course of operations, because they likely maintain and use the requested information in connection with managing client assets. We anticipate that the responses to many of the questions will be unlikely to change from year to year, which will minimize the ongoing reporting burden associated with these questions.
The amendments to Part 1A, Items 5.K.(1), 5.K.(2), 5.K.(3) and 5.K.(4) and Schedule D, Sections 5.K.(1), 5.K.(2) and 5.K.(3) are designed to collect information about the separately managed accounts managed by advisers. These amendments will enhance existing information we receive and permit us to conduct more robust risk monitoring with respect to advisers of separately managed accounts. As discussed above, the information collected about separately managed accounts will include regulatory assets under management reported by asset type, borrowings and derivatives information, and the identity of custodians that hold at least ten percent of separately managed account regulatory assets under management. We believe that advisers to separately managed accounts may maintain and use this or similar information for operational reasons (
Although we understand that much of the requested information may be used by advisers for operational reasons or account reporting, we expect that these amendments may subject advisers, particularly those that advise a large number of separately managed accounts and engage in borrowings and derivatives transactions on behalf of separately managed accounts, to an increased paperwork burden. We are adopting new Items 5.K.(1) through (4) and Sections 5.K.(1) and 5.K.(3) largely as proposed with certain modifications in response to comments we received. With respect to Section 5.K.(2), in order to minimize the burden on advisers
In the Proposing Release, we estimated that each adviser would spend, on average, 2 hours completing the questions regarding separately managed accounts in the first year a new or existing investment adviser completes these questions.
We are adding several new questions and amending existing questions on Form ADV regarding an adviser's identifying information, advisory business, and financial industry affiliations. The revised questions primarily refine or expand existing questions or request information we believe that advisers already have for compliance purposes. For example, we are requiring each adviser to provide CIK Numbers if it has one or more such numbers and to provide the address of each of the adviser's social media pages. Other questions require advisers to provide readily available or easily accessible information, such as the amendment to Part IA, Item 1.O. that requires advisers to report their assets within ranges. However, some of the revised questions may take longer for advisers to complete, such as the amendments to Schedule D, Section 1.F that require information about an adviser's 25 largest offices other than its principal office and place of business. While this information should be readily available to an adviser because it should be aware of its offices, a clerk will be required to manually enter expanded information about the adviser's offices in the first year the adviser responds to the item and then make updates in subsequent years. Some commenters thought that additional office reporting would be a significant burden on advisers.
We are adopting a number of amendments to Item 5 in addition to the questions relating to separately managed accounts discussed above. Like other new or revised items, we believe several of these new Item 5 questions will require advisers to provide readily available information, such as the number of clients and regulatory assets under management attributable to each category of clients during the last fiscal year. Advisers currently provide this information in ranges, and therefore likely already have available to them the more precise numbers to report. In addition, information such as whether the adviser uses different assets under management numbers in Part 1A vs. Part 2A of Form ADV should be readily available. Other revised items will likely present greater burdens for some
In the Proposing Release, we estimated that the proposed revisions to Part 1A of Form ADV and Schedule D would take each adviser approximately 1 hour, on average, to complete in the first year a new or existing adviser responds to the questions.
As discussed above, we are adopting several further amendments to Form ADV that are designed to clarify the Form and its instructions and address technical issues. These changes primarily refine existing questions. For example, we are deleting the phrase “newly formed adviser” from Part IA, Item 2.A.(9) because of questions from filers about whether that phrase refers to only newly formed corporate entities. Similarly, we are amending Part IA, Item 8.B.(2) to clarify that the question applies to any related person who recommends the adviser to advisory clients or acts as a purchaser representative. Because these amendments do not change the scope or amount of information required to be reported on Form ADV, we do not believe that these clarifying, technical, and other amendments to Part 1A of Form ADV will increase or decrease the average total collection of information burden for advisers in their first year filing Form ADV. We did not receive comments regarding reporting burdens associated with these technical and clarifying amendments.
As a result of the amendments to Form ADV Part 1A discussed above, including the amendments related to separately managed accounts, additional items, and technical and clarifying amendments, we estimate the average total collection of information burden will increase 5 hours to 45.74 hours per adviser for the first year that an adviser completes Form ADV (Part 1 and Part 2).
We are adopting several amendments to Part 1A, Schedule D, Section 7.B. that will refine and enhance existing information we receive about advisers to private funds. In addition, as part of our codification of umbrella registration, we are adding a new schedule to Part 1A—Schedule R—to be submitted by advisers to private funds that use umbrella registration to file a single Form ADV. We believe the information required by the amendments to Part 1A, Schedule D, Section 7.B will be readily available or easily accessible to advisers to private funds. For example, the PCAOB assigned number for a private fund auditor should be readily available or easily accessible to that private fund's adviser. As discussed in Section II.A.2.c., we modified Part 1A, Schedule D, Section 7.B.(1). Question 15(b) regarding sales of private funds to qualified clients in response to commenters' concerns. The question is now limited to 3(c)(1) funds, and requires only a “yes” or “no” answer, rather than requiring advisers to report the percentage of a private fund held by qualified clients. Other amendments to Section 7.B. are designed to make the questions easier to answer, but do not cause a change in reporting burden, including moving certain “notes” to questions and changes to the current question regarding unqualified opinions. The currently approved total annual burden estimate for advisers making their initial filing in completing Item 7.B. and Schedule D, Section 7.B. is 1 hour per private fund. We do not estimate that the amendments to Schedule D, Section 7.B, including the changes from the proposal, will increase or decrease the total annual burden because the information is readily available to advisers. Most of the comments on the amendments to Part 1A, Schedule D, Section 7.B. concerned the qualified client question, Question 15(b), which we modified as discussed above.
The incorporation of umbrella registration into Form ADV will codify a staff position and provide a method for certain private fund advisers that operate as a single advisory business to file a single registration form. Umbrella registration will only be available if the filing adviser and each relying adviser advise only private funds and clients in separately managed accounts that are qualified clients, as defined in rule 205-3 under the Advisers Act, that are otherwise eligible to invest in the private funds advised by the filing or a relying adviser. The filing and relying advisers will also have to satisfy certain requirements, including that each relying adviser is controlled by or under common control with the filing adviser. There has been staff guidance for single registration under defined circumstances since 2012,
We believe that much of the information we are requiring in
There is no currently approved annual burden estimate for completing Schedule R because it is a new Schedule. Taking into account the scope of information we are requesting, our understanding that much of the information is readily available and currently required on Form ADV, and the fact that private fund advisers that file an umbrella registration in reliance on staff guidance had on average three relying advisers,
Exempt reporting advisers are required to complete a limited number of items in Part 1A of Form ADV (consisting of Items 1, 2.B., 3, 6, 7, 10, 11 and corresponding schedules), are not required to complete Part 2 and will not be eligible to file new Schedule R. The amendments to Part 1A will revise only Items 1 and 7 for exempt reporting advisers. We believe that most exempt reporting advisers are unlikely to be required to do additional reporting in response to the new requirements. In addition, the information required by these revisions should be readily available to any adviser as part of their ongoing operations and management of client assets.
We estimate that, as a result of the amendments to Form ADV Part 1A discussed above, other than those applicable to private funds, the average total collection of information burden per respondent will increase 5 hours to 45.74 hours per adviser for the first year that an adviser completes Form ADV (Part 1 and Part 2).
Approximately 12,024 investment advisers are currently registered with the Commission.
Based on IARD system data, we estimate that there will be approximately 1,000 new investment advisers filing Form ADV with us annually. Therefore, we estimate that the total annual aggregate burden estimate applicable to these advisers for the first year that they complete Form ADV but excluding private fund reporting requirements is 45,740 hours (1,000 advisers × 45.74 hours). Amortizing the burden imposed by Form ADV for new registrants over a three-year period to reflect the anticipated period of time that advisers will use the revised Form will result in an average annual aggregate burden estimate of 15,247 hours per year
The amount of time that a registered adviser managing private funds will incur to complete Item 7.B. and Section 7.B. of Schedule D will vary depending on the number of private funds the adviser manages. Of the advisers currently registered with us, we estimate that approximately 4,469 registered advisers advise a total of 30,896 private funds, and, on average, 300 Commission-registered advisers annually will make their initial filing with us reporting approximately 1,100
We also are adding a new Schedule R to Form ADV for umbrella registration. Of the advisers currently registered with us, we estimate based on current Form ADV filings that approximately 743 registered advisers currently submit a single Form ADV on behalf of themselves and approximately 2,587 relying advisers.
The current approved collection of information burden for Form ADV has three elements in addition to those discussed above: (1) The annual burden associated with annual and other amendments to Form ADV; (2) the annual burden associated with creating new Part 2 brochure supplements for advisory employees throughout the year; and (3) the annual burden associated with delivering codes of ethics to clients as a result of the offer of such codes contained in the brochure. We anticipate that our amendments to Form ADV will increase the currently approved annual burden estimate associated with annual amendments to Form ADV from 6 hours to 8 hours per adviser, but will not impact interim updating amendments to Form ADV.
We continue to estimate that, on average, each adviser filing Form ADV through the IARD will likely amend its form two times during the year. We estimate, based on IARD system data, that advisers, on average, make one interim updating amendment (at an estimated 0.5 hours per amendment) and one annual updating amendment each year. Our estimate for the annual updating amendment in the Proposing Release was 7 hours per amendment each year. Based on the comments we received regarding separately managed account reporting that are discussed above,
In addition, the currently approved annual burden estimates are that each investment adviser registered with us will, on average, spend 1 hour per year making interim amendments to brochure supplements,
The currently approved total annual collection of information burden estimate for Form ADV has a one-time initial cost for outside legal and compliance consulting fees in connection with the initial preparation of Part 2 of Form ADV. We do not anticipate that the amendments we are adopting to Form ADV will affect the per adviser cost burden estimates for outside legal and compliance consulting fees. In addition to the estimated legal and compliance consulting fees, investment advisers of private funds incur costs with respect to the requirement for investment advisers to report the fair value of private fund assets. We did not receive any comments regarding these specific costs.
We expect that 1,000 new advisers will register annually with the Commission. We estimate that the initial cost related to preparation of Part 2 of Form ADV will be $4,400 for legal services and $5,000 for compliance consulting services, in each case, for those advisers who engage legal counsel or consultants. We anticipate that a quarter of these advisers will seek the help of outside legal services and half will seek the help of compliance consulting services. Accordingly, we estimate that 250 of these advisers will use outside legal services, for a total annual aggregate cost burden of
We estimate that 6% of registered advisers have at least one private fund client that may not be audited. These advisers therefore may incur costs to fair value their private fund assets. Based on IARD system data as of May 16, 2016, 4,469 registered advisers currently advise private funds. We therefore estimate that approximately 268 registered advisers may incur costs of $37,625 each on an annual basis, for an aggregate annual total cost of $10,083,500.
Together, we estimate that the total cost burden among all respondents for outside legal and compliance consulting fees related to third party or outside valuation services and for drafting outside legal and compliance consulting fees to be $13,683,500.
Based on IARD system data as of May 16, 2016, there are approximately 3,248 exempt reporting advisers currently filing reports with the SEC.
The currently approved estimate of the average total collection of information burden per exempt reporting adviser for the first year that an exempt reporting adviser completes a limited subset of Part 1 of Form ADV, other than Item 7.B. and Section 7.B. of Schedule D, is 2 hours. As discussed above, we do not anticipate that our amendments to Form ADV will affect the per exempt reporting adviser burden estimate. Based on IARD system data, we estimate that there will be 500 new exempt reporting advisers filing Form ADV annually. Therefore, we estimate that the total aggregate annual burden applicable to the existing and new exempt reporting advisers for the first year that they complete Form ADV but excluding private fund reporting requirements increases to 7,496 hours.
As discussed above, we estimate the burden of completing Item 7.B. and Section 7.B. of Schedule D to be 1 hour per private fund. We do not anticipate that our amendments to Form ADV will affect the per exempt reporting adviser burden of completing Item 7.B. and Section 7.B. of Schedule D. Based on IARD system data as of May 16, 2016, we estimate that, on average, the 3,248 exempt reporting advisers report 11,915 funds. In addition, we estimate that the 500 new exempt reporting advisers making their initial filing will report approximately 1,000 funds, resulting in a total aggregate annual burden of 12,915 hours.
In addition to the burdens associated with initial completion and filing of the portion of the form that exempt reporting advisers are required to prepare, we estimate that, based on IARD system data, each exempt reporting adviser will amend its form 2 times per year. On average, these consist of one interim updating amendment (at an estimated 0.5 hours per amendment)
The revised total annual aggregate collection of information burden for SEC registered advisers to file and complete the revised Form ADV (Parts 1 and 2), including the initial burden for both existing and anticipated new registrants, private fund reporting, plus the burden associated with filing amendments to the form, preparing brochure supplements and delivering codes of ethics to clients, is estimated to be approximately 351,386 hours per year, for a monetized total of approximately $89,427,737.
The revised total annual collection of information burden for exempt reporting advisers to file and complete the required Items of Part 1A of Form
We estimate that with today's amendments to Form ADV, the revised total aggregate annual hour burden for the form will be approximately 363,082 hours and the monetized total will be approximately $92,404,369.
Registered investment advisers are also expected to incur an annual cost burden of $13,683,500, an increase of $10,083,500 from the current approved cost burden estimate of $3,600,000. The increase in annual cost burden is attributable to the currently approved burden not considering the cost to advisers to fair value private fund assets.
Rule 204-2 (OMB Control No. 3235-0278) requires investment advisers registered, or required to be registered under section 203 of the Act, to keep certain books and records relating to their advisory business. The collection of information under rule 204-2 is necessary for the Commission staff to use in its examination and oversight program. The information provided to the Commission in connection with staff examinations, investigations and oversight programs would be kept confidential subject to the provisions of applicable law. The collection of information is mandatory.
The amendments to rule 204-2 will require investment advisers to make and keep the following records: (i) Documentation necessary to demonstrate the calculation of the performance the adviser distributes to any person, and (ii) all written communications received or sent relating to the adviser's performance.
The currently approved total annual burden for rule 204-2 is based on an estimate of 10,946 registered advisers subject to rule 204-2 and an estimated average burden of 181.45 burden hours each year per adviser, for a total annual aggregate burden estimate of 1,986,152 hours. Based upon updated IARD system data as of May 16, 2016, the approximate number of investment advisers is 12,024. As a result of the increase in the number of advisers registered with the Commission since the current total annual burden estimate was approved, the total burden estimate has increased by 195,603 hours.
Advisers will likely use a combination of compliance clerks and general clerks to make and keep the information and records required under the rule. The currently approved total annual aggregate cost burden is $108,708,557.10. We estimate the hourly wage for compliance clerks to be $65 per hour, including benefits, and the hourly wage for general clerks to be $58 per hour, including benefits.
The Commission has prepared the following Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, in accordance with section 4(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, in relation to our amendments to Form ADV and rule 204-2 and our technical amendments to certain other rules under the Advisers Act.
We are adopting amendments to Form ADV that are designed to provide the Commission with additional information about registered investment advisers, including information about separately managed accounts, provide for umbrella registration for multiple investment advisers operating as a single advisory business, and provide technical, clarifying and other amendments to certain Form ADV provisions. The amendments to Form ADV will improve the depth and quality of the information provided by investment advisers to the Commission and the public.
We are also amending the Advisers Act books and records rule to require advisers to make and keep supporting documentation that demonstrates performance calculations or rates of return in any written communications that the adviser circulates or distributes, directly or indirectly, to any person. We believe that the amendments to the books and records rule will improve investor protections by providing useful information in examining and evaluating advisers' performance claims.
Finally, we are adopting technical amendments to certain rules under the Advisers Act to remove transition provisions where the transition process is complete.
The Commission is sensitive to the burdens that the Form ADV and rule amendments may have on small advisers. In the Proposing Release, we requested comment on matters discussed in the IRFA. In particular, we sought comments on the number of small entities, particularly small advisers, to which the amendments to Form ADV and Advisers Act rules would apply, and the impact of those amendments on the small entities, including whether the effects would be economically significant.
The Commission received one comment letter specifically addressing the IRFA
One commenter described more generally the burdens of the amendments to Form ADV on smaller private fund advisers.
With respect to the amendments that we proposed to the Books and Records rule, one commenter noted that while the amendments were not themselves burdensome, when aggregated with other recordkeeping obligations, could lead to overall compliance burdens for smaller advisers.
With respect to the amendments to Form ADV and the Advisers Act rules generally, we believe that they will improve the depth and quality of information provided by investment advisers to the Commission and the public and our oversight of advisers.
The amendments to Form ADV and the Advisers Act rules affect all advisers registered with the Commission and exempt reporting advisers, including small entities. Under Commission rules, for the purposes of the Advisers Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, an investment adviser generally is a small entity if it: (1) Has assets under management having a total value of less than $25 million; (2) did not have total assets of $5 million or more on the last day of the most recent fiscal year; and (3) does not control, is not controlled by, and is not under common control with another investment adviser that has assets under management of $25 million or more, or any person (other than a natural person) that had total assets of $5 million or more on the last day of its most recent fiscal year.
Our rule and Form ADV amendments will not affect most advisers that are small entities (“small advisers”) because they are generally registered with one or more state securities authorities and not with us. Under section 203A of the Advisers Act, most small advisers are prohibited from registering with the Commission and are regulated by state regulators. Based on IARD system data, we estimate that as of May 16, 2016, approximately 526 advisers that are small entities are registered with the Commission.
The only small entity exempt reporting advisers that are subject to the amendments are exempt reporting advisers that maintain their principal office and place of business in Wyoming or outside the United States. Advisers with less than $25 million in assets under management generally are prohibited from registering with us unless they maintain their principal office and place of business in Wyoming or outside the United States. Exempt reporting advisers are not required to report regulatory assets under management on Form ADV and therefore we do not have a precise number of exempt reporting advisers that are small entities. Exempt reporting advisers are required to report in Part 1A, Schedule D the gross asset value of each private fund they manage.
The amendments to Form ADV and rule 204-2 impose certain reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements on all Commission-registered advisers, including small advisers. All Commission-registered small advisers are required to file Form ADV and include the new information required by the amendments, and all Commission-registered small advisers are subject to the amended recordkeeping requirements. Our technical amendments to other Advisers Act rules do not impose different reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on small advisers.
The amendments to Form ADV require registered investment advisers to report different or additional information than what is currently required. Approximately 526 small advisers currently registered with us are subject to these requirements. We expect these 526 small advisers to spend, on average, 5 hours to respond to the new and amended questions, not including items relating to private fund reporting, which is discussed below.
In addition, of these 526 small advisers, we estimate that 3 small advisers currently rely on the 2012 ABA Letter to act as filing advisers for their relying advisers.
We do not estimate any increase or decrease in burden related to our amendments for small private fund advisers, other than the hours related to Schedule R, or for exempt reporting advisers. The total estimated costs associated with our amendments to Form ADV that we expect will be borne by small advisers is $670,099.
Our amendments to rule 204-2's performance information recordkeeping provisions require investment advisers to make and keep the following records: (i) Documentation necessary to demonstrate the calculation of the performance the adviser distributes to any person, and (ii) all written communications received or sent relating to the adviser's performance. These amendments will create reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for small advisers. As discussed in the Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis in Section V. above, the amendments to rule 204-2 will increase the burden by
The Regulatory Flexibility Act directs the Commission to consider significant alternatives that would accomplish the stated objective, while minimizing any significant adverse impact on small entities. In connection with the Form ADV and rule amendments, the Commission considered the following alternatives: (i) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements that take into account the resources available to small advisers; (ii) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the Form ADV and rule amendments for such small entities; (iii) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (iv) an exemption from coverage of the Form ADV and rule amendments, or any part thereof, for such small entities.
Regarding the first and second alternatives, the adopted amendments require reporting on separately managed accounts on Schedule 5.K.(2) of Form ADV only for advisers with $500 million or more of regulatory assets under management attributable to separately managed accounts. Further, we require semi-annual information filed annually for those advisers with regulatory assets under management attributable to separately managed accounts of at least $10 billion, and annual information for other advisers.
Regarding the first and fourth alternatives for the other amendments to Form ADV and Advisers Act rules, we do not believe that different compliance or reporting requirements or an exemption from coverage of the Form ADV and rule amendments, or any part thereof, for small entities, would be appropriate. Information about advisers of all sizes is required for the Commission and its staff to perform their role in overseeing investment advisers. Accordingly, we are not modifying the reporting requirements for smaller advisers.
Regarding the second alternative for the other amendments to Form ADV and the Advisers Act rules, we considered whether further clarification, consolidation, or simplification of the compliance requirements was feasible or necessary. In response to commenters, we clarified certain instructions and items, which apply to all advisers filing Form ADV. The remaining Form ADV amendments do not change that all SEC-registered advisers use a single form, Form ADV, and an existing filing system, IARD, for reporting and registration purposes, and this does not change for small entities. With respect to the rule 204-2 amendments, we believe that the same requirements should apply to all advisers to permit our staff to more effectively examine them.
Regarding the third alternative, we considered using performance rather than design standards with respect to the amendments to Form ADV and rule 204-2 but, for the Commission and its staff to perform their role in overseeing advisers, advisers must provide certain registration information and maintain books and records in a uniform and quantifiable manner so that it is useful to our regulatory and examination program.
The Commission is adopting amendments to Form ADV under section 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. 77s(a)], sections 23(a) and 28(e)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. 78w(a) and 78bb(e)(2)], section 319(a) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 [15 U.S.C. 7sss(a)], section 38(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a-37(a)], and section 203(c)(1), 204 and 211(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80b-3(c)(1), 80b-4, and 80b-11(a)]. The Commission is amending rule 204-2 pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 204 and 211 of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. 80b-4 and 80b-11]. The Commission is amending rule 202(a)(11)(G)-1 pursuant to authority in sections 202(a)(11)(G) and 206A of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)(11)(G) and 80b-6A]. The Commission is amending rule 203-1 pursuant to authority in section 206A of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. 80b-6A]. The Commission is rescinding rule 203A-5 and amending rule 204-1 pursuant to authority in sections 204 and 211(a) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. 80b-4 and 80b-11(a)]. The Commission is amending rule 204-3 pursuant to authority in sections 204, 206(4) and 211(a) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. 80b-4, 80b-6(4) and 80b-11(a)].
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Securities.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows.
15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)(11)(G), 80b-2(a)(11)(H), 80b-2(a)(17), 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-4a, 80b-6(4), 80b-6a, and 80b-11, unless otherwise noted.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * *
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(7) Originals of all written communications received and copies of all written communications sent by such investment adviser relating to:
(i) Any recommendation made or proposed to be made and any advice given or proposed to be given;
(ii) Any receipt, disbursement or delivery of funds or securities;
(iii) The placing or execution of any order to purchase or sell any security;
(iv) The performance or rate of return of any or all managed accounts or securities recommendations:
(A) That the investment adviser shall not be required to keep any unsolicited market letters and other similar communications of general public distribution not prepared by or for the investment adviser, and
(B) That if the investment adviser sends any notice, circular or other advertisement offering any report, analysis, publication or other investment advisory service to more than 10 persons, the investment adviser shall not be required to keep a record of the names and addresses of the persons to whom it was sent; except that if such notice, circular or advertisement is distributed to persons named on any list, the investment adviser shall retain with the copy of such notice, circular or advertisement a memorandum describing the list and the source thereof.
The Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80b-1,
By the Commission.
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 |