Page Range | 66791-67090 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
81 FR 67089 - National Voter Registration Day, 2016 | |
81 FR 67027 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 67027 - Order of Suspension of Trading; i n the Matter of Accel Brands, Inc. | |
81 FR 67013 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 66949 - Sunshine Act Notice | |
81 FR 67047 - Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors | |
81 FR 66919 - Board for International Food and Agricultural Development; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 66912 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Revision of Bycatch Reduction Device Testing Manual | |
81 FR 66961 - Notification of a Public Teleconference and Meeting of the Science Advisory Board Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee Augmented for the Review of EPA's Draft Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) IRIS Assessment | |
81 FR 67058 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Publication 1345 | |
81 FR 67059 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8316 | |
81 FR 67059 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedure 2006-42 | |
81 FR 66970 - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions Received | |
81 FR 66951 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Student Assistance General Provisions-Subpart J-Approval of Independently Administered Tests | |
81 FR 67012 - Tennessee State Plan; Change in Level of Federal Enforcement: Marine Construction | |
81 FR 67006 - Aerial Lifts Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
81 FR 67010 - Student Data Form; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
81 FR 66995 - Notice of Public Meeting for the Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council | |
81 FR 66921 - Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe From India: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
81 FR 66808 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Keweenaw Waterway, Houghton and Hancock, MI | |
81 FR 66925 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe From India: Final Affirmative Determination | |
81 FR 66810 - Safety Zone: Monte Foundation Fireworks Extravaganza, Capitola, CA | |
81 FR 66950 - Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees | |
81 FR 66996 - Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom | |
81 FR 66997 - Certain Table Saws Incorporating Active Injury Mitigation Technology and Components Thereof; Notice of Request for Statements on the Public Interest | |
81 FR 67003 - Welding, Cutting, and Brazing; Extension of the Office of Management of Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
81 FR 67013 - Millennium Challenge Corporation Advisory Council Notice of Open Meeting | |
81 FR 66923 - Meeting of the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board | |
81 FR 67013 - Membership of the National Endowment for the Arts Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board | |
81 FR 67046 - Notice of Submission Deadline for Schedule Information for Chicago O'Hare International Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, Newark Liberty International Airport, and San Francisco International Airport for the Summer 2017 Scheduling Season | |
81 FR 67057 - General Motors, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance | |
81 FR 67014 - Talen Energy Combined License Application for Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant | |
81 FR 66930 - Status of New Uniform Residential Loan Application and Collection of Expanded Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Information About Ethnicity and Race in 2017 | |
81 FR 66999 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | |
81 FR 67004 - OSHA's Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Form; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
81 FR 66920 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Kentucky Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss Potential Project Proposals | |
81 FR 67008 - Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) | |
81 FR 66964 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
81 FR 67007 - Nemko North America, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of Recognition | |
81 FR 67001 - SGS North America, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of Recognition | |
81 FR 66842 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis (Big Pine Partridge Pea), Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. serpyllum (Wedge Spurge), and Linum arenicola (Sand Flax), and Threatened Species Status for Argythamnia blodgettii (Blodgett's Silverbush) | |
81 FR 66957 - Panda Stonewall LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
81 FR 66951 - Southwest Power Pool, Inc.; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date | |
81 FR 66952 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
81 FR 66957 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
81 FR 66928 - Nominations to the Marine Mammal Scientific Review Groups | |
81 FR 66966 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 67046 - CSX Transportation, Inc.-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Pike County, KY | |
81 FR 66919 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License | |
81 FR 66950 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 66927 - Marine Mammals; File No. 20599 | |
81 FR 66911 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for Five Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon; Reopening of Public Comment Period | |
81 FR 66919 - Gallatin Resource Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 66991 - Proposed Roseburg Resources Co. Safe Harbor Agreement for the Northern Spotted Owl and Draft Environmental Assessment | |
81 FR 66999 - Meeting of the Compact Council for the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact | |
81 FR 67015 - Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for Comments | |
81 FR 66996 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey, New Mexico | |
81 FR 66970 - Biosimilar User Fee Act; Public Meeting; Correction | |
81 FR 66813 - Safety Zone; Temporary Change to Date and Location for Recurring Pittsburgh Steelers Fireworks Display Within the Eighth Coast Guard District, Pittsburgh, PA | |
81 FR 66967 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements | |
81 FR 66929 - Fisheries of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR); U.S. Gulf of Mexico Data-Limited Species | |
81 FR 66952 - North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Order Approving Reliability Standards | |
81 FR 66957 - Grand River Dam Authority; Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
81 FR 66960 - Vote Solar Initiative, Montana Environmental Information Center v. Montana Public Service Commission; Notice of Complaint | |
81 FR 66959 - Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Gulf Connector Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues | |
81 FR 66977 - National Maritime Security Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 66967 - Use of Nucleic Acid Tests To Reduce the Risk of Transmission of West Nile Virus From Living Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products; Guidance for Industry; Correction | |
81 FR 67014 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
81 FR 67015 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
81 FR 67015 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
81 FR 66807 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; James River, Hopewell, VA | |
81 FR 66808 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, New Orleans, LA | |
81 FR 66965 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
81 FR 67047 - Notice of Final Equal Employment Opportunity Program Circular | |
81 FR 67051 - FY16 Discretionary Funding Opportunity: Low or No Emission Component Assessment Program (LoNo-CAP) | |
81 FR 66924 - Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee | |
81 FR 67023 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to TRACE Reporting and Dissemination of CMO Transactions | |
81 FR 67038 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Rule To Prohibit Disruptive Quoting and Trading Activity and Allow the Exchange To Take Prompt Action | |
81 FR 67016 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule To Modify the Exchange's Connectivity Fees | |
81 FR 67033 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Nasdaq Rule 5735 To Adopt Generic Listing Standards for Managed Fund Shares | |
81 FR 67036 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 and Partial Amendment No. 2, Amending Exchange Rule 49 Regarding the Exchange's: (1) Emergency Powers; (2) Disaster Recovery Plans; and (3) Backup Systems and Mandatory Testing | |
81 FR 67029 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 and Partial Amendment No. 2, Amending Exchange Rule 49 Regarding the Exchange's: (1) Emergency Powers; (2) Disaster Recovery Plans; and (3) Backup Systems and Mandatory Testing | |
81 FR 67031 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Correct Rule 3.6A | |
81 FR 66999 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | |
81 FR 67027 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Add to the Rules of the Exchange the Tenth Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the New York Stock Exchange LLC | |
81 FR 67019 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Nasdaq's Fees at Rule 7014(f) | |
81 FR 66898 - Extension of Comment Period for Disclosure Update and Simplification | |
81 FR 66967 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service-Annual Report | |
81 FR 66949 - Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request | |
81 FR 67056 - Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment for Rulemaking To Require the Installation and Maintenance of Speed Limiting Devices in Heavy Vehicles | |
81 FR 67044 - Northcreek Mezzanine Fund II, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest | |
81 FR 67045 - Announcement of Funding Pool Size for the Growth Accelerator Fund Competition | |
81 FR 67060 - Tribal Health Programs-Community Care Consolidation | |
81 FR 67045 - Montana Disaster #MT-00099 Declaration of Economic Injury | |
81 FR 67045 - California Disaster #CA-00256 Declaration of Economic Injury | |
81 FR 67044 - Kentucky Disaster #KY-00061 | |
81 FR 66963 - Open Commission Meeting, Thursday, September 29, 2016 | |
81 FR 66920 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
81 FR 66980 - Maryland; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
81 FR 66981 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
81 FR 66994 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments | |
81 FR 66983 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
81 FR 66865 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Bluefish Fishery; Quota Transfer | |
81 FR 66988 - Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations | |
81 FR 66962 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Information Collection Effort for Oil and Gas Facilities | |
81 FR 67000 - Labor Surplus Area Classification Under Executive Orders 12073 and 10582 | |
81 FR 66989 - Endangered Species; Marine Mammals; Issuance of Permits | |
81 FR 66990 - Endangered Species; Marine Mammals; Receipt of Applications for Permit | |
81 FR 66829 - Suspension of Community Eligibility | |
81 FR 66978 - Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations | |
81 FR 66998 - Certain Digital Models, Digital Data, and Treatment Plans for Use in Making Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment Appliances, the Appliances Made Therefrom, and Methods of Making the Same Rescission of Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of an Investigation | |
81 FR 66976 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 66975 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 66976 - Center for Scientific Review Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 66900 - Federal Baseline Water Quality Standards for Indian Reservations | |
81 FR 66791 - OCC Guidelines Establishing Standards for Recovery Planning by Certain Large Insured National Banks, Insured Federal Savings Associations, and Insured Federal Branches; Technical Amendments | |
81 FR 66815 - Repayment by VA of Educational Loans for Certain Psychiatrists | |
81 FR 66822 - Domestic Mail Manual; Incorporation by Reference | |
81 FR 66821 - International Mail Manual; Incorporation by Reference | |
81 FR 66823 - Technical Correction to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter | |
81 FR 66826 - Air Plan Approval; TN: Revisions to Logs and Reports for Startups, Shutdowns and Malfunctions | |
81 FR 66823 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources | |
81 FR 66899 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources | |
81 FR 66804 - Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Tunisia, Eritrea, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Côte d'Ivoire, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and Other Changes | |
81 FR 66972 - Announcement of Requirements and Registration for “The Simple Extensible Sampling Tool Challenge” | |
81 FR 66801 - Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Airplanes | |
81 FR 66874 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
81 FR 66872 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes | |
81 FR 66866 - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: 2008 Farm Bill Provisions on Clarification of Split Issuance; Accrual of Benefits and Definition Changes | |
81 FR 66877 - Incorporation by Reference of ICAO Annex 2; Removal of Outdated North Atlantic Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications | |
81 FR 66881 - Safety Standard for Baby Changing Products | |
81 FR 66830 - Service Rules Governing Narrowband Operations in the 769-775/799-805 MHz Bands | |
81 FR 66833 - Exemption From Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard | |
81 FR 67062 - Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Completion of Electronic Reporting Requirements |
Agricultural Research Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Economic Development Administration
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents 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.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury.
Final rule and guidelines.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is adopting enforceable guidelines establishing standards for recovery planning by insured national banks, insured Federal savings associations, and insured Federal branches of foreign banks with average total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more (Final Guidelines). The OCC is issuing the Final Guidelines as an appendix to its safety and soundness standards regulations, and the Final Guidelines will be enforceable by the terms of the Federal statute that authorizes the OCC to prescribe operational and managerial standards for national banks and Federal savings associations. The OCC is also adopting technical changes to the safety and soundness standards regulations that are made necessary by the addition of the Final Guidelines.
This final rule and guidelines are effective on January 1, 2017. The compliance dates for the Final Guidelines in Appendix E to part 30 vary, as specified below.
Lori Bittner, Large Bank Supervision—Resolution and Recovery, (202) 649-6093; Stuart Feldstein, Director, Andra Shuster, Senior Counsel, Karen McSweeney, Counsel, or Priscilla Benner, Attorney, Legislative & Regulatory Activities Division, (202) 649-5490; or Valerie Song, Assistant Director, Bank Activities and Structure Division, (202) 649-5500; or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
The financial crisis demonstrated the destabilizing effect that severe stress at large, complex, interconnected financial companies can have on the national economy, capital markets, and the overall financial stability of the banking system. Following the crisis, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act);
One lesson learned from the crisis is the importance—especially in large, complex financial institutions—of a strong risk governance framework. In 2014, the OCC formally adopted heightened standards guidelines that address the risk governance of large, complex banks (Heightened Standards).
Further, in the aftermath of the crisis, it became clear that many financial institutions had insufficient plans for identifying and responding rapidly to significant stress events that affected their financial condition and threatened their viability. As a result, many institutions were forced to take significant actions quickly without the benefit of a well-developed plan. In addition, recent large-scale events, such as destructive cyber attacks, demonstrate the need for institutions to plan how to respond to the financial effects of such occurrences. Therefore, the OCC believes that a large, complex institution should undertake recovery planning to be able to respond quickly to and recover from the financial effects of severe stress on the institution.
In December 2015, the OCC invited public comment on proposed guidelines establishing minimum standards for recovery planning by insured national banks, insured Federal savings associations, and insured Federal branches of foreign banks (together, banks and each, a bank) with average total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more (together, covered banks and each, a covered bank).
The OCC received six comment letters on the proposed guidelines from
The comments we received generally supported the proposed guidelines, acknowledging that recovery planning is an important part of risk management and that the use of guidelines, rather than regulations, provides both covered banks and the OCC with appropriate flexibility. However, the commenters asked the OCC to clarify various provisions in the proposal. For example, commenters requested that the OCC address the ability of a covered bank to leverage other processes in developing its recovery plan and to tailor its plan based on the size, risk profile, and complexity of the bank. They also asked the OCC to clarify the role of the board with respect to the plan. In addition, commenters suggested that the OCC consider tiered compliance dates. As discussed more fully below, the OCC has revised the Final Guidelines in response to the comments we received and has made other technical and clarifying changes.
The OCC is adopting these Final Guidelines pursuant to section 39 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA).
Section 39 prescribes different consequences depending on whether an agency issues the standards by regulation or guideline. Pursuant to section 39, if a bank
The procedural rules implementing the supervisory and enforcement remedies prescribed by section 39 are contained in part 30 of the OCC's rules. Under these provisions, the OCC may initiate a supervisory or enforcement process when it determines, by examination or otherwise, that a bank has failed to meet the standards set forth in the Final Guidelines.
If a bank fails to submit an acceptable compliance plan or fails in any material respect to implement a compliance plan approved by the OCC, the OCC shall issue a Notice of Intent to Issue an Order pursuant to section 39 (Notice of Intent). The bank then has 14 days to respond to the Notice of Intent. After considering the bank's response, the OCC may issue the order, decide not to issue the order, or seek additional information from the bank before making a final decision. Alternatively, the OCC may issue an order without providing the bank with a Notice of Intent. In such a case, the bank may appeal after-the-fact to the OCC, and the OCC has 60 days to consider the appeal. Upon the issuance of an order, a bank is deemed to be in noncompliance with part 30. Orders are formal, public documents, and the OCC may enforce them in Federal district court. The OCC may also assess a civil money penalty, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1818, against any bank that violates or otherwise fails to comply with any final order and against any institution-affiliated party who participates in such violation or noncompliance.
Like the proposal, the Final Guidelines consist of three sections. Section I explains the scope of the Final Guidelines, sets forth the applicable compliance dates, and defines key terms. Section II sets forth the standards for the design and execution of a covered bank's recovery plan. Section III describes the responsibilities of a covered bank's management and board in connection with the bank's recovery plan.
The proposal provided that for any bank with average total consolidated assets less than $50 billion as of the effective date of the guidelines, whose average total consolidated assets subsequently reached $50 billion or greater, the guidelines would apply on the as-of date of the bank's most recent Call Report used in the calculation of the average total consolidated assets. Once a bank's average total consolidated assets had reached or exceeded the $50 billion threshold, the preamble explained that the bank would have had to comply with the guidelines, unless
The OCC received no comments on these provisions and adopts them as proposed.
The OCC agrees that a phased-in compliance period is appropriate and adopts the compliance schedule set forth below, which we believe gives covered banks, including those likely to have the least experience with recovery planning, sufficient time to prepare their plans. Under this schedule, a covered bank with average total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $750 billion on the effective date of these Final Guidelines should comply within 6 months of the effective date. A covered bank with average total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $100 billion but less than $750 billion on the effective date should comply within 12 months of the effective date. A covered bank with average total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $50 billion but less than $100 billion on the effective date should comply within 18 months of the effective date. Finally, a bank with less than $50 billion in average total consolidated assets on the effective date, which subsequently becomes a covered bank, should comply with the Final Guidelines within 18 months of becoming a covered bank.
In either case, when determining whether a bank's or covered bank's operations were highly complex or otherwise presented a heightened risk, the proposed guidelines stated that the OCC would consider an institution's size, risk profile, activities, and complexity, including the complexity of its organizational and legal entity structure. The guidelines also stated that, when exercising the authority reserved by this provision, the OCC would apply notice and response procedures consistent with those set out in 12 CFR 3.404.
Commenters had no substantive comments on this subsection. However, we have added “scope of operations” to the factors that we will consider in determining whether a bank's or covered bank's operations are highly complex or otherwise present a heightened risk. Otherwise, the OCC is adopting these provisions as proposed and reiterates that we expect to use this authority infrequently and do not intend to apply the Final Guidelines to community banks.
The proposal defined “trigger” as a “quantitative or qualitative indicator of the risk or existence of severe stress that should always be escalated to management or the board, as appropriate, for purposes of initiating a response.” It stated that the breach of any trigger should result in timely notice, accompanied by sufficient information, to enable management of the covered bank to take corrective action.
The OCC received one comment regarding references to the “operational” effects of severe stress in the proposal. The commenter stated that a covered bank's recovery plan should address the effects of
The proposal defined the term “recovery plan” to include restoring a covered bank's “financial and operational strength and viability.” The same commenter noted that the purpose of a recovery plan is to help a covered bank restore its
The proposal prohibited reliance on extraordinary government support in a recovery plan. The OCC received a comment asking it to clarify how this prohibition would apply when a foreign government controls a covered bank. While we have not changed the prohibition set forth in the definition of “recovery plan,” the OCC acknowledges that exceptions to this prohibition may exist with respect to support of a covered bank by a foreign government. We recommend that an affected covered bank discuss this situation with its OCC examiner.
The OCC received no other comments on these definitions. We have clarified, however, several terms defined in the Final Guidelines. First, we revised the definition of “covered bank” to reflect the proposal's preamble statement that “covered bank” includes a bank with average total consolidated assets of less than $50 billion if it was previously a covered bank, unless the OCC determines otherwise. Second, we changed the word “distress” in the definition of “recovery” to “stress.” While the term “distress” can be used to describe either stress itself or the effect of stress, we intended in this context to refer to stress
A.
We note that a covered bank's recovery plan need only be as long and as detailed as is necessary to satisfy these Final Guidelines. The OCC does not have any expectations regarding a plan's length or detail, nor does it expect that recovery plans will mirror the length or detail of resolution plans. Further, the OCC agrees that a covered bank may tailor its recovery plan to its unique size, risk profile, activities, and complexity. Therefore, a smaller, less complex bank may have a shorter, less complex recovery plan. The stress scenarios, triggers, and recovery options appropriate for a covered bank that engages primarily in retail and commercial banking are likely to be different from those for a covered bank that engages in significant trading or capital market activities. Those appropriate for a covered bank that engages primarily in domestic activities are likely to be different from those for a covered bank with extensive foreign activities. For the sake of clarity, we have added language to this description stating that a recovery plan should be specific to the unique characteristics of each covered bank. We have otherwise adopted this subsection as proposed.
B.
1.
Commenters asked the OCC to confirm in the Final Guidelines that other terms, including “material entities,” “critical operations,” and “core business lines,” may be interpreted consistent with the use of those terms elsewhere, such as resolution planning regulations and Heightened Standards. The OCC confirms that a covered bank may include in its recovery plan concepts and terms used elsewhere, provided the bank's resulting recovery plan is consistent with the Final Guidelines. In order to facilitate the OCC's understanding of a covered bank's recovery planning process, a bank's recovery plan should indicate which key terms are drawn from other sources and identify the sources. Otherwise, we adopt this element as proposed.
2.
As explained in the proposal, in designing stress scenarios, a covered bank should consider a range of bank-specific and market-wide scenarios, individually and in the aggregate, that
Examples of market-wide stress scenarios included: A disruption of domestic or global financial markets; a failure or impairment of systemically important financial industry participants, critical financial market infrastructure firms, and critical third-party relationships; significant changes in debt or equity valuations, currency rates, or interest rates; the widespread interruption of critical infrastructure that significantly degraded operational capability;
With respect to the development of stress scenarios, commenters requested that the Final Guidelines not require a covered bank to develop stress scenarios other than those required for supervisory stress tests (
The proposal's discussion of the triggers that a covered bank should include in its recovery plan explained that these triggers should address a continuum of increasingly severe stress, ranging from triggers that provide a warning of the likely occurrence of severe stress to those that indicate the actual existence of severe stress. It stated that the number and nature of triggers should be appropriate for the covered bank's size, risk profile, activities, and complexity. As the proposal further explained, the nature of a trigger should inform the nature of the response. For example, the preamble stated that, in some situations, the appropriate response to the breach of a trigger should be enhanced monitoring; in other situations, the breach of a trigger should result in activating a more specific recovery option set forth in the plan or taking other corrective action. As the proposal noted, however, the breach of a particular trigger does not necessarily correspond to a single recovery option; instead, more than one option may be appropriate when a particular trigger is breached.
The preamble to the proposal stated that quantitative triggers included changes in covered bank-specific indicators that reflect the covered bank's capital or liquidity position. The proposal stated that a covered bank should also consider quantitative triggers other than capital or liquidity that may have an impact on its condition, such as a rating downgrade; access to credit and borrowing lines; equity ratios; profitability; asset quality; or other macroeconomic indicators. It also noted that a covered bank should be prepared to act if it is at risk, regardless of whether a trigger has been breached or the recovery plan includes options that specifically addressed the problems the bank faced.
The proposal also stated that qualitative triggers would include the unexpected departure of senior leadership; the erosion of reputation or market standing; the impact of an adverse legal ruling; and a material operational event that affects the covered bank's ability to access critical services or to deliver products or services to its customers for a material period of time. In retrospect, we believe these scenarios more accurately
The proposal noted that a covered bank should review and update its triggers, as necessary, to take into account changes in laws and regulations and other material events. In addition, it stated that a covered bank should consider any regulatory or legal consequences resulting from the breach of a particular trigger. We made no changes to this element and adopt it as proposed.
3.
The preamble to the proposal explained that the recovery plan should include a description of the decision-making process for implementing each option, outline the steps the bank will follow, identify the critical parties to carry out each option, and address timing considerations. It also stated that a recovery plan should identify obstacles to executing an option and set out mitigation strategies to address these obstacles. Finally, the preamble provided that the plan should identify those options that would require regulatory or legal approval and, consistent with the proposal's definition of “recovery plan,” that neither the plan nor the options may assume or rely on any extraordinary government support.
The preamble noted that a covered bank should be able to execute plan options within time frames that would allow the options to be effective during periods of stress. It also provided examples of recovery options, including the conservation or restoration of liquidity and capital; the sale, transfer, or disposal of significant assets, portfolios, or business lines; steps that reduce the covered bank's risk profile;
As discussed above, the OCC has clarified that the recovery options detailed in a recovery plan are those that respond to the financial effects of severe stress. To effect this clarification in this element of the plan, we have removed “and operational” from the description of the options for recovery in the Final Guidelines. We otherwise adopt this element as proposed. The OCC also notes that a covered bank should not view the options in its plan as exclusive or a specific trigger as necessitating the execution of a particular option. Rather, a covered bank should use its judgment to determine the most appropriate options for the bank to take during a period of severe stress.
4.
As the preamble explained, the assessment should analyze the effect each option would have on the covered bank, including its internal operations (
5.
The OCC received no substantive comments on this element of the plan. However, we have clarified that the breach of
6.
7.
The proposal also stated that a recovery plan should address when and how the covered bank will notify persons within the organization and other external parties of its actions under the recovery plan. This notice is to ensure that all stakeholders are informed in a timely manner of how the covered bank has responded or is responding to a breach of a trigger. In addition, the proposed guidelines stated that the recovery plan should identify how the covered bank would obtain required regulatory or legal approvals, in order to ensure that the bank receives such approval(s) in a timely manner. The OCC received no comments on this element of a recovery plan, and we adopt it as proposed.
8.
C.
The proposed guidelines also stated that, to the extent possible, a covered bank should align its recovery plan with any recovery and resolution planning efforts by the covered bank's holding company, so that the plans are consistent with and do not contradict each other. As the OCC stated in the preamble, some inconsistencies may be unavoidable because recovery planning and resolution planning differ: Recovery planning addresses a bank as a going concern; resolution planning starts from the point of an entity's non-viability. In addition, the preamble noted that covered banks are an integral part of bank holding company recovery and resolution plans; as a result, it stated that a covered bank might be able to leverage certain elements in these other plans. As an example, the proposal referenced resolution plans, which typically require a bank to map its critical operations. It noted that this mapping exercise might be useful to the bank's recovery plan description of interconnections and interdependencies.
The OCC received several comments on this element of the plan requesting the OCC to confirm that covered banks are permitted to leverage existing processes, such as those for stress testing, resolution planning, contingency planning, risk governance, and holding company recovery plans, when developing recovery plans. One commenter requested that the Final Guidelines permit a covered bank to use its holding company's recovery plan to satisfy its obligations under the Final Guidelines, if the risk profiles of both entities are substantially the same. Another commenter asserted that a covered bank should be permitted to leverage its existing governance structure to satisfy its management and board responsibilities under these Final Guidelines.
As explained in the preamble to the proposal, the OCC recognizes that many covered banks already engage in significant planning, including planning responses to cyber attacks, business interruptions, and leadership vacancies. Some banks also undertake a range of other planning, including strategic, contingency, capital (including stress testing), liquidity, and resolution. The same is true for their parent holding companies or affiliates. As also noted in the proposal, we do not intend for the recovery planning described in these Final Guidelines to be needlessly burdensome or duplicative of these other planning processes. The OCC expects, however, that a covered bank's recovery plan will identify the recovery strategies that are
The OCC is making several changes to this provision as proposed. First, we have revised this subsection so that the Final Guidelines themselves state that a covered bank's recovery plan should be specific to the unique characteristics of that bank. Second, we are clarifying that the other plans identified in the proposed guidelines with which a covered bank should coordinate its recovery planning is not an exclusive list. Instead, these are
Section III of the proposed guidelines addressed the responsibilities of a covered bank's management and board with respect to the recovery plan and stated that these responsibilities should be included in the bank's recovery plan.
The proposed guidelines provided that management should review its bank's recovery plan at least annually and in response to a material event. It further stated that management should revise the plan as necessary to reflect material changes in the covered bank's size, risk profile, activities, and complexity, as well as changes in external threats. The preamble explained that during this review, management should consider the ongoing relevance and applicability of the stress scenarios used to identify the plan's triggers and revise the recovery plan as needed.
The proposed guidelines also stated that management's review should include evaluating the covered bank's organizational structure and its effectiveness in facilitating recovery. The preamble explained that this review should include its legal structure, number of entities, geographical footprint, booking practices (
Several commenters requested that the OCC recognize the need for a covered bank to have flexibility regarding the timing of management's annual review of its recovery plan. These commenters explained that this flexibility would facilitate a covered bank's ability to meet deadlines associated with other requirements, such as stress testing. The OCC agrees that management should have flexibility to conduct its annual reviews on its preferred schedule. As noted in the proposal, OCC examiners will assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the covered bank's ongoing recovery planning process as part of the agency's regular supervisory activities, which we believe will provide covered banks with the flexibility they need.
Commenters also requested the OCC to clarify that it is not necessary for
The proposed guidelines also stated that the board is responsible for overseeing the covered bank's recovery planning process. As part of this oversight, the preamble explained that the board should work closely with the bank's senior management in developing and executing the recovery plan. The proposed guidelines also stated that a covered bank's board, or an appropriate committee of the board, should review and approve the bank's recovery plan at least annually and as needed to address any changes made by management.
A number of commenters expressed concern that the preamble's use of “developing and executing” to describe a covered bank board's role with respect to a recovery plan is inconsistent with a board's traditional oversight role. It is not the OCC's intent to expand the board's role, and we note that the regulatory text in both the proposal and Final Guidelines describe the role of the board as “oversight.”
Commenters also asked the OCC to clarify that a covered bank's board need only review and approve a bank's plan yearly, and as necessary to address
We also are including with these Final Guidelines technical and conforming amendments to the part 30 regulations to add references to new Appendix E, which contains the Final Guidelines, where appropriate.
The OCC has determined that the Final Guidelines include collections of information pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
The collections of information that are subject to the PRA in these Final Guidelines are found in 12 CFR part 30, appendix E, sections II.B., II.C., and III. Section II.B. of this appendix specifies the elements of the recovery plan, including an overview of the covered bank; triggers; options for recovery; impact assessments; escalation procedures; management reports; and communication procedures. Section II.C. of this appendix addresses the relationship of the plan to other covered bank processes and coordination with other plans, including the processes and plans of its bank holding company. Section III of this appendix outlines management's and the board's responsibilities.
We received one comment on our proposed information collection from an individual, which addressed all four of the questions below. First, the commenter argued that a stress event that threatens the viability of a covered bank is the result of either an event that the bank could not have foreseen or failed prudential supervision by the OCC. In either case, the commenter argued, a recovery plan will be useless. In addition, this commenter argued that if a covered bank treats its recovery plan like a prescriptive playbook, the plan will fail and, alternatively, if a recovery plan only provides guidelines, the plan will have no practical utility.
In response, as noted above, the OCC believes that stress scenarios are important tools that a covered bank uses to determine areas of vulnerability and help it identify the appropriate triggers. The OCC understands that a covered bank's recovery planning process will not result in a plan that identifies every trigger and option for every possible scenario—but we do believe that the processes of recovery planning and codification of a plan will help a covered bank manage the stresses it encounters. With respect to the role of a recovery plan during a period of severe stress, as noted above, a covered bank should use its judgment to determine the most appropriate options for the bank to take to preserve its financial strength and viability.
The commenter also stated that the OCC's burden estimate was too low. The OCC believes that its original estimate was realistic given the requirements of the proposed guidelines and has included the same estimate in the Final Guidelines. We have adjusted, however, the estimate of respondents to reflect the most recent data available.
In addition, the commenter stated that the agency could enhance the quality and utility of the information collection by requiring
The commenter also stated that the proposed information collection is duplicative of and redundant to information that the OCC currently collects. In response, the OCC recognizes that some information necessary for recovery planning may have been compiled or provided to the OCC for other purposes. However, we believe that it is necessary for a covered bank to assemble this information in the context of recovery planning in order to develop an appropriate plan to respond to future stresses. We encourage, however, covered banks to leverage, including by cross-referencing if appropriate, this prior work. Finally, the commenter argued that it is burdensome to ask a covered bank to connect its recovery plan with its other plans. In response, the OCC notes that a covered bank's various plans are not intended to operate in a vacuum and must be compatible with each other in order to be effective.
Comments should be submitted as provided below and continue to be invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the OCC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the cost of compliance; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of IT.
Because paper mail may be subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email to
You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling (202) 649-6700. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to a security screening.
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
You may request additional information on the collection from Shaquita Merritt, Program Specialist, at (202) 649-6302 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b) (RFA), the regulatory flexibility analysis otherwise required under section 603 of the RFA is not required if the agency certifies that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (defined for purposes of the RFA to include commercial banks and savings institutions with assets less than or equal to $550 million and trust companies with assets less than or equal to $38.5 million) and publishes this certification and a short, explanatory statement in the
In accordance with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532), the OCC prepares a budgetary impact statement before promulgating any rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation). The OCC has determined that these Final Guidelines will not result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation). Accordingly, the OCC has not prepared a budgetary impact statement.
Section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (CDRI) (12 U.S.C. 4802(a)) requires the OCC, in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on insured depository institutions, to consider, consistent with the principles of safety and soundness and the public interest, (1) any administrative burdens that such regulations would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions and customers of depository institutions; and (2) the benefits of such regulations. In determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for these Final Guidelines, the OCC has considered these burdens and benefits, including the requests of commenters for a phased-in compliance period. To this end, the Final Guidelines include phased-in compliance dates and recognize the need for flexibility with respect to the timing of management's annual recovery plan review.
Section 302(b) of CDRI (12 U.S.C. 4802(a)) requires that new OCC regulations, which impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions, take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter which begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form, subject to certain exceptions not relevant here. This is in addition to the requirement in section 553(d) (5 U.S.C. 553(d)) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that a substantive rule be effective no fewer than 30 days after its publication, subject to certain exceptions not relevant here. The effective date of these Final Guidelines is consistent with these requirements.
Banks, Banking, Consumer protection, National banks, Privacy, Safety and soundness, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 93a, chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1, 93a, 371, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 1818, 1828, 1831p-1, 1881-1884, 3102(b) and 5412(b)(2)(B); 15 U.S.C. 1681s, 1681w, 6801, and 6805(b)(1).
* * * The OCC Guidelines Establishing Standards for Recovery Planning by Certain Large Insured National Banks, Insured Federal Savings Associations, and Insured Federal Branches are set forth in appendix E to this part.
A.
B.
1. A covered bank with average total consolidated assets, calculated according to paragraph I.E.1. of this appendix, equal to or greater than $750 billion as of January 1, 2017 should comply with this appendix within 6 months from January 1, 2017.
2. A covered bank with average total consolidated assets, calculated according to paragraph I.E.1. of this appendix, equal to or greater than $100 billion but less than $750 billion as of January 1, 2017 should comply with this appendix within 12 months from January 1, 2017.
3. A covered bank with average total consolidated assets, calculated according to paragraph I.E.1. of this appendix, equal to or greater than $50 billion but less than $100 billion as of January 1, 2017 should comply with this appendix within 18 months from January 1, 2017.
4. A bank with average total consolidated assets, calculated according to paragraph I.E.1. of this appendix, of less than $50 billion as of January 1, 2017 but which subsequently becomes a covered bank should comply with this appendix within 18 months of becoming a covered bank.
C.
1. The OCC reserves the authority:
a. To apply this appendix, in whole or in part, to a bank that has average total consolidated assets of less than $50 billion, if the OCC determines such bank is highly complex or otherwise presents a heightened risk that warrants the application of this appendix; or
b. To determine that compliance with this appendix should not be required for a covered bank. The OCC will generally make this determination if a covered bank's operations are no longer highly complex or no longer present a heightened risk.
2. In determining whether a bank or covered bank is highly complex or presents a heightened risk, the OCC will consider the bank's size, risk profile, scope of operations, activities, and complexity, including the complexity of its organizational and legal entity structure. Before exercising the authority reserved by paragraph I.C.1. of this appendix, the OCC will apply notice and response procedures in the same manner and to the same extent as the notice and response procedures in 12 CFR 3.404.
D.
E.
1.
2.
3.
a. With average total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $50 billion;
b. With average total consolidated assets of less than $50 billion if the bank was previously a covered bank, unless the OCC determines otherwise; or
c. With average total consolidated assets less than $50 billion, if the OCC determines that such bank is highly complex or otherwise presents a heightened risk as to warrant the application of this appendix pursuant to paragraph I.C.1.a. of this appendix.
4.
5.
6.
A.
B.
1.
2.
3.
4.
a. The effect on the covered bank's capital, liquidity, funding, and profitability;
b. The effect on the covered bank's material entities, critical operations, and core business lines, including reputational impact; and
c. Any legal or market impediment or regulatory requirement that must be addressed or satisfied in order to implement the option.
5.
6.
7.
8.
C.
The recovery plan should address the following management and board responsibilities:
A.
B.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model G-1159, G-1159A, G-1159B, and G-IV airplanes. This AD requires revision of the maintenance or inspection program to establish the life limit of all elevator assemblies and skins on affected airplanes. This AD was
This AD is effective October 14, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 23, 2016 (81 FR 61987, September 8, 2016).
We must receive comments on this AD by November 14, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone 800-810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
William O. Herderich, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: 404-474-5547; fax: 404-474-5606; email:
We have determined that it is necessary to establish life limits for certain elevator assemblies and skins. Certain elevator assemblies and skins were reidentified with numbers not listed in the life limits section of the airplane maintenance manual. As a result, the life limit requirement was inadvertently removed. An airplane with an elevator assembly or skin that has exceeded its life limit could experience elevator failure and loss of control. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We reviewed the following temporary revisions (TRs):
• Gulfstream II Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated April 15, 2016.
• Gulfstream IIB Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated April 15, 2016.
• Gulfstream III Maintenance Manual TR 5-2, dated April 15, 2016.
• Gulfstream IV Maintenance Manual TR 5-7, dated April 29, 2016.
This service information establishes life limits for elevator assemblies. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to establish life limits for certain elevator assemblies and skins.
Due to a delay in defining and developing the corrective action that will address the identified unsafe condition, some elevator assemblies may exceed their life limits soon. Because we have determined that exceeding those life limits can result in loss of airplane control, we have determined that it is necessary to issue this AD without notice and opportunity for prior public comment. We consider 30 days the maximum amount of time for operators to revise their maintenance or inspection programs without compromising safety.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because failure of the elevator could result in loss of control of the airplane. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 596 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective October 14, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to all Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model G-1159, G-1159A, G-1159B, and G-IV airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by the need to establish life limits for elevator assemblies and skins. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the elevator assembly and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the life limits identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD, as applicable. The initial compliance time to replace the elevator assembly and skins, as specified in the temporary revision (TR), is as specified in the applicable TR, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, or within 10 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs latest.
(1) For Model G-1159 airplanes: Life limits for elevator skin part numbers 1159CS20002 and 1159SB30209 as specified in Gulfstream II Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated April 15, 2016.
(2) For Model G-1159B airplanes: Life limits for elevator part number 1159SB30209 as specified in Gulfstream IIB Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated April 15, 2016.
(3) For Model G-1159A airplanes: Life limit for elevator part number 1159SB30209 as specified in Gulfstream III Maintenance Manual TR 5-2, dated April 15, 2016.
(4) For Model G-IV airplanes: Life limit for elevator part number 1159SB40518 as specified in Gulfstream IV Maintenance Manual TR 5-7, dated April 29, 2016.
After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
A special flight permit may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane, for one flight only, to a location where the elevator assembly can be replaced, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact William O. Herderich, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: 404-474-5547; fax: 404-474-5606; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on September 23, 2016 (81 FR 61987, September 8, 2016).
(i) Gulfstream II Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated April 15, 2016.
(ii) Gulfstream IIB Maintenance Manual TR 5-3, dated April 15, 2016.
(iii) Gulfstream III Maintenance Manual TR 5-2, dated April 15, 2016.
(iv) Gulfstream IV Maintenance Manual TR 5-7, dated April 29, 2016.
(4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone 800-810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; 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
Department of State.
Interim final rule.
The Department of State is amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to designate Tunisia as a major non-NATO ally (MNNA); reorganize the content in several paragraphs to clarify the intent of the ITAR; update defense trade policy regarding Eritrea, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, and Côte d'Ivoire to reflect resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council; update defense trade policy regarding Sri Lanka to reflect the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016; and update defense trade policy regarding Vietnam to reflect a determination made by the Secretary of State.
The rule is effective on September 29, 2016. The Department of State will accept comments on this interim final rule until October 31, 2016.
Interested parties may submit comments within 30 days of the date of publication by one of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. C. Edward Peartree, Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, U.S. Department of State, telephone (202) 663-2792, or email
In Presidential Determination No. 2015-09, on July 10, 2015, President Obama exercised his authority under § 517 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA) to designate Tunisia as a MNNA for the purposes of the FAA and the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The Department of State amends ITAR § 120.32 to reflect this change.
Paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) of § 126.1 of the ITAR are updated to enhance their clarity. The fundamental content of the aforementioned paragraphs is not changing, but is reorganized in this rule by subject matter. The lists of proscribed countries were previously in multiple paragraphs, but are now consolidated in paragraph (d). Provisions relevant to the rationale for defense trade sanctions, previously located in paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) are now consolidated in paragraph (c). Section 126.18 of the ITAR is amended to maintain conformity with revised paragraph (d) of ITAR § 126.1.
Recent actions by the United Nations (UN), Congress, and the Executive require the Department to amend ITAR § 126.1 to reflect the change in policy towards individual nations identified in that section.
On October 23, 2015, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2244, which reaffirmed the arms embargoes on Eritrea and Somalia. Exemptions from the arms embargo on Somalia are set forth in paragraphs 6 through 11 of UNSCR 2111 and paragraphs 2 through 9 of UNSCR 2142. Thus subparagraphs (1) and (2) of § 126.1(m) of the ITAR have been revised to reflect this change, and subparagraphs (3) through (6) are added to reflect new exceptions for Somalia as enumerated in UNSCR 2111. The revised control text follows the language as published in the aforementioned UNSCRs.
Exemptions from the arms embargo on Eritrea are set forth in paragraphs 12 and 13 of UNSCR 2111; consequently, Eritrea will be moved to paragraph (h) of § 126.1. The revised control text follows the language as published in the aforementioned UNSCRs. The Department modifies paragraph (h) of ITAR § 126.1 accordingly.
On June 23, 2016, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2293, which expanded the exemptions from the arms embargo on the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Exemptions from the arms embargo are set forth in paragraph 3 of the UNSCR. The revised control text follows the language as published in the aforementioned UNSCR. The Department modifies paragraph (i) of ITAR § 126.1 accordingly.
On May 25, 2016, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2288, which terminated the sanctions regime against Liberia, including restrictions on exports to Liberia of arms and related materiel. The Department reserves paragraph (o) to remove Liberia from ITAR § 126.1.
On April 28, 2016 the UNSC adopted Resolution 2283, which terminated the sanctions regime against Côte d'Ivoire, including restrictions on exports to Côte d'Ivoire of arms and related materiel. The Department reserves paragraph (q) to remove Côte d'Ivoire from ITAR § 126.1.
Licensing restrictions relating to Sri Lanka articulated in section 7044(e) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law 113-235, and in previous appropriations acts, were not carried forward in section 7044(e) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Public Law 114-113. Therefore, the Department reserves paragraph (n) to remove Sri Lanka from ITAR § 126.1.
The Secretary of State lifted the ban on lethal weapons sales to Vietnam in May 2016. Accordingly, the Department reserves paragraph (l) and the associated note to remove Vietnam from ITAR § 126.1.
For more information, please visit the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) internet Web site at
The Department invites public comment regarding the organization and clarity of paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) of ITAR § 126.1, as set forth in this rulemaking. Comments regarding the foreign policy of the United States as described herein are outside of the scope of this request.
The Department of State is of the opinion that controlling the import and export of defense articles and services is a foreign affairs function of the United States Government and that rules implementing this function are exempt from sections 553 (rulemaking) and 554 (adjudications) of the Administrative Procedure Act. Since this rule is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 553, the provisions of § 553(d) do not apply to this rulemaking. Therefore, this rule is effective upon publication. The Department also finds that, given the national security issues surrounding U.S. policy towards the aforementioned countries, there is good cause for the effective date of this rule to be the date of publication, as provided by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Since this rule is exempt from the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, there is no requirement for an analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This rulemaking does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The Department does not believe this rulemaking is a major rule within the definition of 5 U.S.C. 804.
This rulemaking will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, the Department has determined that this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributed impacts, and equity). These executive orders stress the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Department has determined that the benefits of this rulemaking outweigh any cost to the public, which the Department believes will be minimal. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The Department of State reviewed this rulemaking in light of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
The Department of State determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.
This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Arms and munitions, Exports.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Title 22, Chapter I, Subchapter M, parts 120 and 126 are amended as follows:
Secs. 2, 38, and 71, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2797); 22 U.S.C. 2794; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; Pub. L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 1920; Pub. L. 111-266; Section 1261, Pub. L. 112-239; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129.
Secs. 2, 38, 40, 42, and 71, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2780, 2791, and 2797); 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 287c; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28205; 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 899; Sec. 1225, Pub. L. 108-375; Sec. 7089, Pub. L. 111-117; Pub. L. 111-266; Sections 7045 and 7046, Pub. L. 112-74; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(c) Identification in § 126.1 of the ITAR may derive from:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(d)
(1) For defense articles and defense services, the following countries have a policy of denial:
(2) For defense articles and defense services, a policy of denial applies to the following countries except as specified in the associated paragraphs below:
(h)
(1) Non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, as approved in advance by the relevant committee of the Security Council; or
(2) Personal protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to Eritrea by United Nations personnel, representatives of the media, humanitarian and development workers, and associated personnel for their personal use only.
(i) * * *
(2) Defense articles and defense services intended solely for the support of or use by the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) or the African Union-Regional Task Force;
(3) Protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to the Democratic Republic of the Congo by United Nations personnel, representatives of the media, and humanitarian and
(5) Defense articles and defense services as approved by the relevant committee of the Security Council.
(l) [Reserved]
(m)
(1) Defense articles and defense services intended solely for the support of or use by the following:
(i) The African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM);
(ii) United Nations personnel, including the United Nations Assistance Mission in Somalia (UNSOM);
(iii) AMISOM's strategic partners, operating solely under the African Union (AU) Strategic Concept of January 5, 2012 (or subsequent AU strategic concepts), and in cooperation and coordination with AMISOM; or
(iv) The European Union Training Mission (EUTM) in Somalia.
(2) Defense articles and defense services intended solely for the development of the Security Forces of the Federal Government of Somalia, to provide security for the Somali people, notified to the relevant committee of the Security Council at least five days in advance, except in relation to deliveries of the following articles, the supply of which needs to be approved in advance by the relevant committee of the Security Council:
(i) Surface to air missiles, including Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems (MANPADS);
(ii) Guns, howitzers, and cannons with a caliber greater than 12.7 mm, and ammunition and components specially designed for these (this does not include shoulder fired anti-tank rocket launchers such as RPGs or LAWs, rifle grenades, or grenade launchers);
(iii) Mortars with a caliber greater than 82 mm;
(iv) Anti-tank guided weapons, including Anti-tank Guided Missiles (ATGMs) and ammunition and components specially designed for these items;
(v) Charges and devices intended for military use containing energetic material; mines, and related materiel; and
(vi) Weapon sights with a night vision capability.
(3) Defense articles and defense services supplied by United Nations member states or international, regional, or subregional organizations intended solely for the purposes of helping develop Somali security sector institutions, other than the Security Forces of the Federal Government of Somalia, and in the absence of a negative decision by the relevant committee of the Security Council within five working days of receiving a notification of any such assistance from the supplying State, international, regional or subregional organization;
(4) Defense articles for the sole use by United Nations member states or international, regional, or subregional organizations undertaking measures to suppress acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia, upon the request of the Federal Government of Somalia for which it has notified the Secretary-General, and provided that any measures undertaken shall be consistent with applicable international humanitarian and human rights laws;
(5) Personal protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to Somalia by United Nations personnel, representatives of the media, humanitarian or development workers, or associated personnel for their personal use only; or
(6) Supplies of non-lethal defense articles intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, notified to the relevant committee of the Security Council five days in advance for its information only, by the supplying State, international, regional, or subregional organization.
(n)-(o) [Reserved]
(q) [Reserved]
(c) * * *
(2) * * * Although nationality does not, in and of itself, prohibit access to defense articles, an employee who has substantive contacts with persons from countries listed in § 126.1(d)(1) shall be presumed to raise a risk of diversion, unless DDTC determines otherwise. * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from drawbridge regulation; modification.
The Coast Guard has modified a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the SR 156/Benjamin Harrison Memorial Bridge across the James River, mile 65.0, at Hopewell, VA. This modified deviation is necessary to extend the deviation timeframe to perform bridge maintenance and repairs. This modified deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
This modified deviation is effective without actual notice from September 29, 2016 through 6 a.m. on October 28, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from September 22, 2016, 8:45 a.m., until September 29, 2016.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0668] is available at
If you have questions on this modified temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Michael R. Thorogood, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6557, email
On July 25, 2016, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; James River, Hopewell, VA” in the
The Virginia Department of Transportation, who owns and operates the SR 156/Benjamin Harrison Memorial Bridge, has requested a modified temporary deviation from the currently published deviation to extend the deviation timeframe to facilitate replacement of the service elevators for both lift towers, install new electrical wiring, bird screens, and structural steel of the bridge. The current operating schedule is open on signal as set out in 33 CFR 117.5. This modified temporary deviation serves to replace the previous temporary deviation in the
Under this modified temporary deviation, the bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 p.m. through 6 a.m.; Monday through Friday; October 3, 2016, through October 7, 2016; October 10, 2016, through October 14, 2016; October 17, 2016, through October 21, 2016; and October 24, 2016, through October 28, 2016. The bridge will open for vessels on signal during scheduled closure periods, if at least 10 hours notice is given. The bridge is a vertical lift drawbridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 50 feet above mean high water.
The James River is used by a variety of vessels including deep-draft vessels, tug and barge traffic, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies during scheduled closure periods, if at least 30 minutes notice is given. There is no immediate alternative route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transit to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Leon C. Simon Blvd. (Seabrook) (aka Senator Ted Hickey) bascule bridge across the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, mile 4.6, at New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The deviation is necessary to accommodate The Endurance Foundation Festival, a New Orleans event. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed-to-navigation for a eight hours on the day of the event.
This deviation is effective from October 2, 2016 from 7 a.m. through 3 p.m.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0868] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Donna Gagliano, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard, telephone (504) 671-2128, email
Premier Event Management, through the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LDOTD), requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule of the Leon C. Simon Blvd. (Seabrook) (aka Senator Ted Hickey) bascule bridge across the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, mile 4.6, at New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The deviation was requested to accommodate The Endurance Foundation Festival, a New Orleans event. The vertical clearance of the Leon C. Simon Blvd. (Seabrook) (aka Senator Ted Hickey) bascule bridge is 46 feet above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited in the open-to-navigation position. The bridge is governed by 33 CFR 117.458(c).
This deviation is effective on October 2, 2016. The bridge over the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal will be closed to marine traffic from 7 a.m. through 3 p.m. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed-to-navigation for the duration of the event.
Navigation on the waterway consists of small tugs with and without tows, commercial vessels, and recreational craft, including sailboats.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule for the US41 bridge, mile 16.0 over the Keweenaw Waterway, between the towns of Houghton and Hancock, Michigan. The use of the waterway has changed and
This rule is effective October 31, 2016.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone 216-902-6085, email
On July 25, 2016, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Keweenaw Waterway, Houghton and Hancock, MI, in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. MDOT requested to change the operating schedule of the US41 (Houghton-Hancock) bridge (33 CFR 117.635). The US41 bridge is the only crossing over the Keweenaw Waterway and connects the towns of Houghton and Hancock, Michigan. The current operating schedule has been in place for approximately 31 years and the use of the waterway has changed significantly, prompting the request to modify the current regulation to reflect current needs of navigation.
Keweenaw Peninsula is the northernmost part of Michigan's Upper Peninsula projecting into Lake Superior. The Keweenaw Waterway runs northwesterly to southeasterly and separates the peninsula from the mainland making the US41 bridge the only bridge crossing for residents and visitors to the peninsula.
The Keweenaw Waterway is used by recreational, commercial, inspected and uninspected passenger, and towing vessels. The US41 bridge is a vertical lift type drawbridge and provides a horizontal clearance of 250 feet, a vertical clearance of 103 feet in the fully open position, a vertical clearance of 7 feet in the closed position, and a vertical clearance of 35 feet in the intermediate position. The US41 bridge is a bi-level bridge originally designed with the upper level providing access for automobiles and the lower level providing access for rail, oversized vehicles, and snowmobiles.
The rail service to the peninsula has been discontinued and oversized vehicles must provide advance notice to the state before traveling over the road to the peninsula. Most recreational and commercial vessel traffic, including passenger vessel services, end prior to November 15 each year and do not resume services until after May 7 due to the formation of ice in the waterway. Large commercial freighter vessels do not routinely pass through the Keweenaw Waterway.
MDOT requested to remove bridgetenders between the hours of midnight and 4:00 a.m. each day and operate the bridge if at least 2-hours advance notice is provided between those hours during the navigation season. The table below shows total bridge opening data provided by MDOT, from April 16 to December 14, between the hours of midnight and 4 a.m., for the past 6 years.
The current regulation also requires the bridge to operate with a 24-hour advance notice for openings from January 1 through March 15 each year. The table below shows the total bridge opening data provided by MDOT, between December 15 and April 15, for the past 5 years.
Based on the bridge opening data provided by MDOT, only one year (2013) resulted in more than 7 openings, or an average of one opening per month, between the hours of midnight and 4:00 a.m. between mid-April and mid-December, during the past 6 years. This rule will allow the bridge to operate with at least a 2-hour advance notice for openings from April 15 through December 15 between the hours of midnight and 4 a.m. During these hours no bridgetender will be required at the bridge. The bridge will be placed in the intermediate position during this 4-hour time period providing a vertical clearance of 35 feet. Vessels requiring a full bridge opening will still be able to obtain an opening with a 2-hour advance notice. Vessels may also go around the peninsula to avoid passing through the bridge.
Based on the bridge opening data provided by MDOT, only one year (2013) resulted in more than one bridge opening for the entire period between mid-December and mid-April during the past 6 years. The standard advance notice time applied to most drawbridges in the Great Lakes during the non-navigation season is 12-hours advance notice. This rule will allow the bridge to operate with at least 12-hour advance notice for openings from December 15 through April 15. During these dates no bridgetender will be required at the bridge. Vessels may also go around the peninsula to avoid passing under the bridge.
The Coast Guard provided a comment period of 30 days and did not receive any comments.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866.
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice during times when vessel traffic is at its lowest.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard did not receive any comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator because the bridges will open with advance notice during low traffic times on the waterway or when ice conditions hinder normal navigation.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridges may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The draw of the US41 bridge, mile 16.0 between Houghton and Hancock, shall open on signal; except that from April 15 through December 14, between midnight and 4 a.m., the draw shall be placed in the intermediate position and open on signal if at least 2 hours notice is given. From December 15 through April 14 the draw shall open on signal if at least 12 hours notice is given.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters at Capitola Wharf in Capitola, CA in support of Monte Foundation Fireworks Extravaganza on October 9, 2016. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of mariners and spectators from the dangers associated with the pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or their designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on October 9, 2016.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Christina Ramirez, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-3585 or email at
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish safety zones.
The Monte Foundation will sponsor the Monte Foundation Fireworks Extravaganza on October 9, 2016, at Capitola Wharf in Capitola, CA in approximate position 36°58′10″ N., 121°57′12″ W. (NAD 83) as depicted in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart 18685. Upon the commencement of the fireworks display, a safety zone is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with pyrotechnics.
This temporary safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around the land based launch site at the Capitola Wharf in Capitola, CA. Upon the commencement of the 25-minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at 8:30 p.m. on October 9, 2016, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around the fireworks launch site within a radius of 1,000 feet in approximate position 36°58′10″ N., 121°57′12″ W. (NAD 83) for the Monte Foundation Fireworks Extravaganza. At the conclusion of the fireworks display the safety zone shall terminate.
The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the launch site until the conclusion of the scheduled display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the launch site to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
We expect the economic impact of this rule will not rise to the level of necessitating a full Regulatory Evaluation. The safety zone is limited in duration, and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule may affect owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for a limited duration. When the safety zone is activated, vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone. The maritime public will be advised in advance of this
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone of limited size and duration. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-3547.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is temporarily changing the enforcement period and location for a recurring fireworks display within the Eighth Coast Guard District. This regulation applies to only one recurring fireworks display event that takes place in Pittsburgh, PA. This action is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created from a barge-based fireworks display.
In § 165.801, the first table to § 165.801, entry 67 is effective from September 29, 2016 through February 28, 2017. In § 165.801, the first table to § 165.801, entry 59 is suspended from September 29, 2016 through February 28, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard, at telephone 412-221-0807, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because fireworks displays on or over the navigable waterway poses safety concerns for waterway users. In this case, the Coast Guard published an NPRM entitled, “Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Update” in which it proposed to amend and update its safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.801, the first table to § 165.801 relating to recurring fireworks shows and other events within the Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley area of responsibility. The NPRM published on March 7, 2016 (81 FR 11706), and no comments were received. A final rule was published, entitled, “Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Update” on June 14, 2016 finalizing the recurring safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.801, the first table to § 165.801 (81 FR 38595).
On August 25, 2016, the Coast Guard discovered the safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.801, the first table to § 165.801, entry 59 for the Pittsburgh Steelers Fireworks, Pittsburgh, PA has been changed to extend through February 2017, instead of January 2017, and the location has been changed from Ohio River, Mile 0.3-Allegheny River, Mile 0.2 to Allegheny River mile 0.0-0.25, Ohio River mile 0.0-0.3 and Monongahela River mile 0.0-0.1.
After receiving and fully reviewing the event information, circumstances, and exact location, the Coast Guard determined that it is impracticable to publish an NPRM for the date and location changes because we must establish this safety zone on the date of publication of this rule.
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Pittsburgh (COTP) has determined that a safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created from a barge-based fireworks display. For the 2016-2017 Pittsburgh Steelers football season, the Coast Guard will temporarily suspend the regulation listed in 33 CFR 165.801, the first table to § 165.801, entry 59. Instead, by this rule, the Coast Guard will create a separate temporary rule in § 165.801, the first table to § 165.801, entry 67 in order to reflect the correct dates and locations for the 2016-2017 Pittsburgh Steelers' football season fireworks display events. This change is needed to accommodate the change in date and location of Pittsburgh Steelers Fireworks. No other portion of the § 165.801, the first table to § 165.801or other provisions in § 165.801 are affected by this regulation.
The Coast Guard is temporarily suspending the regulation listed in 33 CFR 165.801, the first table to § 165.801, entry 59 and adding temporary regulation in Table to § 165.801, entry 67 in order to reflect the correct dates and locations for this year's events. This change is needed to accommodate the change in date and location of Pittsburgh Steelers Fireworks. No other portion of the first table to § 165.801 or other provisions in § 165.801 shall be affected by this regulation. Entry 59 establishes the safety zone on Sunday, Monday, or Thursday from September through January at Ohio River, Mile 0.3-Allegheny River, Mile 0.2 (Pennsylvania).
This regulation temporarily changes the enforcement period from September through January to August through February, and the location from Ohio River, Mile 0.3-Allegheny River, Mile 0.2 (Pennsylvania) to Allegheny River mile 0.0-0.25, Ohio River mile 0.0-0.1, Monongahela River mile 0.0-0.1. The duration of the safety zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created from a barge-based firework display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
In addition to notice in the
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone impacts a small portion of the waterway for a limited duration of less than two hours in the evening. Vessel traffic will be informed about the safety zone through local notices to mariners. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue broadcast notices to mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to transit the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting less then two hours that will prohibit entry to the Allegheny River mile 0.0-0.25, Ohio River mile 0.0-0.1, Monongahela River mile 0.0-0.1 during the barge-based firework event. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The addition reads as follows:
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is adding to its medical regulations a program for the repayment of educational loans for certain psychiatrists who agree to a period of obligated service with VA. This program is intended to increase the pool of qualified VA psychiatrists and increase veterans' access to mental health care.
Crystal Cruz, Deputy Director, Healthcare Talent Management (10A2A4), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420; (405) 552-4346. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Public Law 114-2, the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act (Clay Hunt SAV Act), was enacted on February 12, 2015. Section 4 of this Act establishes a pilot program for the repayment of educational loans for certain psychiatrists seeking employment in VA, which will be referred to as the Program for the Repayment of Educational Loans (PREL) in this rulemaking. VA is in need of qualified psychiatrists to treat veterans who suffer from mental health disorders. This rulemaking is intended to increase the pool of qualified mental health specialists and, in turn, increase veterans' access to needed mental health care. The Clay Hunt SAV Act authorizes VA to repay educational loans to physicians who pursued a program of study leading to a certification in psychiatry. In order to assure that applicants are committed to VA employment, the statute provides that an individual who is participating in any other program of the Federal Government that repays educational loans is not eligible for the PREL. The Clay Hunt SAV Act also states that an individual who breaches his or her period of obligated service is liable to the United States, in lieu of such obligated service, for the amount that has been paid or is payable to or on behalf of the individual, reduced by the proportion of the number of days of the total obligation that the individual has already served. Under the Clay Hunt SAV Act, the PREL may continue for three years after the effective date of this rulemaking.
The purpose of section 4 of the Clay Hunt SAV Act is substantively similar to the purpose of the statutory authority for the Educational Debt Reduction Program (EDRP), which is codified at 38 U.S.C. 7681, and section 4 of the Clay Hunt SAV Act appears as a Note to section 7681. Both programs are designed to assist VA in the recruitment and retention of qualified health care professionals and the repayment of educational loans to such individuals. VA did not promulgate regulations for the EDRP because there is no statutory requirement to establish regulations for an employee retention program. 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). However, subsection (h) of section 4 of the Clay Hunt SAV Act specifically requires VA to prescribe regulations to carry out the program. We have designed the regulations for the PREL in the Clay Hunt SAV Act to be as similar as possible to the VA policies for the EDRP except in specific identified circumstances unique to the PREL as stated in this rulemaking. Similarities between these two programs will facilitate their administration by VA.
We are adding a new center heading immediately after § 17.636 to read, “Program for Repayment of Educational Loans for Certain VA Psychiatrists,” and to add new §§ 17.640 through 17.647.
New § 17.640 is the purpose section for the PREL. This section states that §§ 17.640 through 17.647 establish the requirements for the PREL “obtained by physician residents pursuing a certification in psychiatry.”
New § 17.641 is the definitions section applicable to §§ 17.640 through 17.647. The definitions are in alphabetical order in accordance with current writing convention.
We are defining the term “acceptance of conditions” to mean “a signed document between VA and a participant of the PREL, in which the participant must agree to a period of obligated service, to maintain an acceptable level of performance determined by supervisory review in the position to which VA appoints the participant, terms and amount of payment, and to relocate, if required, to a location determined by VA at the participant's expense in exchange for educational loan repayments under the PREL.” The participant in the PREL is required to agree to all of the terms and conditions in the acceptance of conditions. The acceptance of conditions is consistent with the acceptance of conditions for the EDRP, with the added requirement of a mobility agreement. This additional requirement alerts the participant to the possibility of relocating to a geographical area that is not in the vicinity of the participant's residence and that such relocation is at the participant's expense. The requirement for relocation allows VA to better address employment needs for
The Clay Hunt SAV Act requires VA to establish in regulation standards for qualified loans. We are defining “educational loan” to mean “a loan, government or commercial, made for educational purposes by institutions which are subject to examination and supervision in their capacity as lending institutions by an agency of the United States or of the state in which the lender has its principal place of business.” We are also stating “[l]oans must be for the actual costs paid for tuition, and other reasonable educational expenses such as living expenses, fees, books, supplies, educational equipment and materials, and laboratory expenses.” This definition will clarify that VA will only repay educational loans, not other types of loans that the participant incurred while the participant was completing his or her education. We are stating that loans must be obtained from a government entity, a private financial institution, a school, or any other authorized entity stated in this definition, as required by section 4(a)(2) of the Clay Hunt SAV Act. For this reason, we are also listing the types of loans that would not qualify for the repayment of educational loans; for example, loans made by family or friends, home equity loans, or other non-educational loans. The definition of educational loan will help ensure that debts repaid under this program are truly unpaid educational debt from legitimate educational institutions; represent debt related specifically to the specialty for which VA is recruiting the participant; and minimize opportunities for fraud or misuse of repayment funds. The definition will be consistent with the definition of educational loans for the EDRP program, and is based on our experience administering that program.
We are defining the term “obligated service” to mean the period described in § 17.646. We are including this definition for convenience, but are setting forth the substantive requirements for obligated service in a separate section.
We are stating that the PREL means the program for the repayment of educational loans for certain VA psychiatrists established in §§ 17.640 through 17.647. This shorter term will be used throughout §§ 17.640 through 17.647.
New § 17.642(a) will state the eligibility criteria for the PREL. The first criterion, § 17.642(a)(1), is that the applicant be a U.S. citizen. We are stating that the applicant must be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident because the purpose of the program is to increase the supply of qualified psychiatrists. The obligated service requirement could be harder to meet in the case of non-U.S. citizens or permanent residents whose ability to remain in this country is contingent on factors beyond VA's control.
The Clay Hunt SAV Act describes eligible individuals as either licensed or eligible for licensure to practice psychiatric medicine in VA or enrolled in the final year of residency program leading to a specialty qualification in psychiatric medicine that is approved by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Although the Clay Hunt SAV Act provides for two different categories of eligible individuals, for this pilot program, we are only considering those that are enrolled in the final year of residency program leading to a specialty qualification in psychiatric medicine to allow VA to draw from a new pipeline of applicants by securing their commitment to VA service while still in residency. Based on past VA recruitment initiatives, VA has encountered a high yield of qualified applicants among those individuals who are in their final year of residency. Nearly two-thirds of all U.S. medical students train in VA medical facilities. We have encountered a greater success rate for VA employment among these students. Under the EDRP, however, VA cannot recruit from the pool of individuals who are in their final year of residency because the EDRP is solely for individuals who are permanent VA employees. VA will use this new, limited authority, in the pilot to focus solely on applicants still in a residency program. This temporary exclusion for the pilot program is intended for discovery purposes and will be assessed as part of the reporting requirements to determine impact and expansion feasibility.
Individuals who are licensed or eligible for licensure would be considered under the EDRP. Therefore, the second eligibility criteria, in § 17.642(a)(2), is that the applicant be “enrolled in the final year of a post-graduate physician residency program leading to either a specialty qualification in psychiatric medicine or a subspecialty qualification of psychiatry; the program must be accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education or the American Osteopathic Association.” Although the Clay Hunt SAV Act only includes programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, we are expanding the eligibility to include programs accredited by the American Osteopathic Association to increase the pool of qualified candidates. This expansion also makes the PREL consistent with program accreditation requirements for all other VA medical professionals.
The applicant also has to meet other requirements at the time of employment. Specifically, the applicant must have completed all psychiatry residency training, received a completion certificate from the Program Director confirming successful completion of the residency program, and certify intention to apply for board certification in the specialty of psychiatry (through the American Board of Medical Specialties or the American Osteopathic Association) within two years of completion of the residency.
VA's statute requires applicants be licensed or eligible for licensure to practice psychiatric medicine at the time of VA employment. Licensure criteria is listed in § 17.642(a)(3) and consists of having “at least one full, active, current, and unrestricted license that authorizes the licensee to practice in any State, Territories, and possessions of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico” and documentation of “graduation from a school of medicine accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or the American Osteopathic Association; or, if an international medical graduate, verify that requirements for certification by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates have been met.” These criteria are consistent with the employment requirements for all VA medical professionals.
New § 17.642(b) stipulates that if the applicant is simultaneously participating in any other program of the Federal Government that repays educational loans, the individual is not eligible to participate in the PREL. This
New § 17.643 states what constitutes a complete application for the PREL. New § 17.643(a) states that the complete application for the PREL consists of a completed application form, letters of reference, and personal statement. The letters of reference and personal statement requested from the applicant are consistent with the information requested from individuals who are applying for a medical position in VA.
The types of letters of reference that an applicant for the PREL would need to submit as part of the complete application package are specified in § 17.643(b). These letters of reference attest to the applicant's knowledge and expertise in the field of psychiatric medicine, and will assist VA in selecting the best qualified applicants.
New § 17.643(c) states what constitutes a personal statement. The personal statement provides VA with the applicant's employment history, training, accomplishments, clinical areas of interest, as well as the reasons why the applicant would like to be employed in VA. The personal statement will help VA assess the applicant's strengths, which will assist in job placement within VA. We also request attestation that the applicant is not participating in any other loan payment program. The Clay Hunt SAV Act specifically excludes individuals from participating in the program if they are participating in any other program of the Federal Government that repays educational loans. The applicant must submit a summary of his or her educational debt, including the total amount of the debt, when the debt was acquired, and the name of the lending agency that provided the loan. New § 17.643(c) states that the loan must be specific to education that was required, used, and qualified the applicant for appointment as a psychiatrist. VA understands that there is a high cost associated with attending medical school and this program will ease the financial burden of the applicants. Lastly, the personal statement must include a full curriculum vitae of the applicant. The information that is requested from the applicants as part of their personal statement is the same information that VA requests from applicants of the EDRP program.
New § 17.644 establishes the selection criteria for applicants to the PREL. VA has an increasing need for qualified physicians who are certified in the field of psychiatry. As such, VA wants to make certain that the applicants who are selected for the PREL are highly qualified in their field as well as demonstrate a long term commitment to employment in VA. The selection criteria in § 17.644(a) is consistent with the selection criteria for physicians seeking employment in VA. VA will try to appoint participants of the PREL to the location desired by the participant and suited to the participant's personal goals; however, VA reserves the right to appoint a participant to a VA medical facility with the greatest need for additional staff psychiatrists. The selection criteria will also include meeting all of the eligibility criteria in § 17.642, strong references from peers and faculty supervisors, and good to excellent standing in the residency program, as determined from the Program Director letter. The participant must not have any identifiable past issues that will adversely affect the participant's credentialing process. If the participant is unable to be credentialed by VA, the participant will fail to comply with terms and conditions of participation in the PREL. The documentation provided by the participant under § 17.642 will alert VA of any past issues before the participant is selected and will enable VA to select a participant who would be better suited for VA's needs.
The Clay Hunt SAV Act establishes a minimum number of individuals who VA would select for each year that VA carries out the PREL. New § 17.644(b) includes this requirement by stating that VA will select not less than ten individuals to participate in the program for each year that VA carries out the program.
New § 17.644(c) states that “VA will notify applicants that they have been selected in writing.” Even though the participant may still be completing his or her residency requirement, we state that the applicant “becomes a participant in the program once the participant submits and VA signs the acceptance of conditions.” This will ensure the participant's commitment to the program.
The Clay Hunt SAV Act establishes a maximum annual amount that VA may pay to a participant of the PREL. Public Law 114-2, sec. 4(e)(2). VA may pay no more than $30,000 in educational loan repayment for each year of obligated service. This payment restriction is stated in § 17.645(a)(1). New § 17.645(a)(2) further limits the amount paid to the participant by stating that “[a]n educational loan repayment may not exceed the actual amount of principal and interest on an educational loan or loans.” VA will add this restriction to alert the participant that once the loan has been repaid, VA will not issue further payments on this loan. VA reserves the right to issue payment in the manner that is most beneficial to VA. We are, therefore, stating in § 17.645(b) that VA will issue payments to the applicant or to the “lending institution, on behalf of the participant, for the principal and interest on approved loans.” We are also stating that the payments will be issued on a monthly or annual basis for each applicable service period depending on the terms of the acceptance of conditions. In order to verify that the participant is properly allocating the funds awarded to him or her, VA will require that the participant provide documentation that shows the amounts that were paid or were credited to reduce the principal and interest on the participant's educational loans during an obligated service period. The PREL is an incentive for recruitment of individuals whose education leads to a degree of doctor of medicine or doctor of osteopathy with a certification in psychiatry. As such, we state that payments issued to the participant for the PREL are exempt from Federal taxation.
New § 17.646 provides the requirements for the obligated service for the PREL. New § 17.646(a) states that “[a] participant's obligated service will begin on the date on which the participant begins full-time, permanent employment with VA in the field of psychiatric medicine in a location determined by VA.” We further add that the “obligated service must be full-time, permanent employment and does not include any period of temporary or contractual employment.” VA needs to establish a commencement date for the participant's obligated service in the event that there is a breach in the service agreement. The Clay Hunt SAV Act states that a participant of the PREL must serve for a period of two or more calendar years. This requirement is stated in § 17.646(b). In order to make the best use of available resources, VA reserves the right to make the final decision on where the participant is assigned to complete his or her obligated service. VA will make every effort to take into consideration the participant's preference; however, if there is no immediate need for a clinical employee in psychiatric medicine in the participant's preferred location, VA will
If a participant fails to commence or complete his or her period of obligated service, such participant is found in breach of the obligated service agreement. Section 4(f) of the Clay Hunt SAV Act provides a liability clause in case of a breach in the participant's obligated service. We will state the participant's liability in § 17.647(a). The amount that a participant would be liable to the United States would be “the full amount of benefit they expected to receive in the agreement, pro-rated for completed service days.” Each participant will have a multi-year service agreement. VA interprets this provision to mean that in the event of a breach, at whatever point that breach occurs during the participants' commitment to the program, a participant will be liable to VA for the entire amount that was payable to the participant during the period to which they have committed to the program, minus the prorated amount for the service the participant rendered. VA believes the PREL's authority is intended to allow VA to collect the full amount of loan payments payable to the participant over the entire term of the individual's service agreement, in a proportion that adequately represents the harm to the agency of being without one of these practitioners for the period of the breach. Participants who fail to begin or complete their obligation will become liable to the United States for the full amount of benefit they expected to receive in the agreement, pro-rated for completed service days for any service year initiated but not completed, and $30,000 or the yearly amount agreed to in the acceptance of conditions for any full service year agreed to but not initiated.
The intent of the Clay Hunt SAV Act is to increase the pool of qualified psychiatrists in VA and the participant's liability will deter a participant from leaving VA employment or, alternatively, will ensure that VA has authority to recover damages. New § 17.647(b) establishes the repayment period for the amount of damages due to the United States. We state that the participant will be required to repay the amount of damages owed no later than one year after the date of the breach of the acceptance of conditions.
This final rule prescribes regulations that govern VA employment and are, therefore, exempt from the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).
In addition, we note that the number of veterans receiving VA mental health care has greatly increased in the past years. VA provided mental health treatment to more than 1.6 million Veterans in FY 2015. Between FY 2005 and 2015, the number of Veterans who received mental health care from VA grew by 80 percent from ~.9M to ~1.6M. In 2005, 19% of VA users received mental health services, in 2015, the figure was 28%. VA Mental Health Care Fact Sheet July, 8, 2016. This increase is due to improved screening, awareness, and understanding of post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as other mental health disorders. Without qualified psychiatrists to assist veterans in overcoming mental health disorders, this number could increase in the coming years. Veterans have voiced their concerns regarding the lack of qualified mental health specialists within VA, a deficiency that has increased the wait time for VA mental health care. VA Mental Health Care Fact Sheet July, 8, 2016. According to the VA Office of Mental Health Services, VA currently tracks the average number of days from the Veteran's preferred appointment date to the completed appointment date for both new and established patients in mental health treatment. On average, new patients currently have a 4.6-day wait for an appointment and established patients have a 3-day wait. Overall, appointment wait times increased gradually from approximately 2 days at the beginning of FY 2014 to about 3 days in FY 2015 and into FY 2016.
This rulemaking will increase the pool of qualified VA psychiatrists, which will greatly alleviate the shortage of mental health physicians. The Secretary finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay this rule for the purpose of soliciting advance public comment or to have a delayed effective date.
The Secretary finds good cause to issue this rule as a final rule.
Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this final rulemaking, represents VA's implementation of its legal authority on this subject. Other than future amendments to this regulation or governing statutes, no contrary guidance or procedures are authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to conform with this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance is superseded by this rulemaking.
This final rule includes a provision constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) that requires approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Accordingly, under 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), VA has submitted a copy of this rulemaking to OMB for review. OMB assigns control numbers to collections of information it approves. VA 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. Proposed § 17.643 contains a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Except for emergency approvals under 44 U.S.C. 3507(j), VA 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. We have requested that OMB approve the collection of information on an emergency basis, for up to a maximum of 180 days. If OMB does not approve the collection of information as requested, we will immediately remove § 17.643 or take such other action as is directed by OMB.
We are also seeking an approval of the information collection on a nonemergency basis, to authorize the collection of information after the 180 day maximum emergency approval period, by requesting comments on the collection of information provisions contained in § 17.643. Comments must be submitted by November 28, 2016. Comments on the collection of information contained in this final rule should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies sent by mail or hand delivery to the Director, Regulations Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; fax to (202) 273-9026; or through
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of information contained in this final rule
VA considers comments by the public on collections of information in—
• Evaluating whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of VA, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluating the accuracy of VA's estimate of the burden of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimizing the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The collections of information contained in § 17.643 are described immediately following this paragraph, under their respective titles.
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule directly affects only individuals and will not directly affect small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this amendment is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
VA has examined the economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action, and it has been determined to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 because it is likely to result in a rule that may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.007, Blind Rehabilitation Centers; 64.008, Veterans Domiciliary Care; 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; 64.011, Veterans Dental Care; 64.012, Veterans Prescription Service; 64.013, Veterans Prosthetic Appliances; 64.014, Veterans State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans State Nursing Home Care; 64.018, Sharing Specialized Medical Resources; 64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol and Drug Dependence; 64.022, Veterans Home Based Primary Care; and 64.024, VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program.
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. Robert D. Snyder, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on May 23, 2016, for publication.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Government contracts, Grant programs-health, Grant programs-veterans, Health care, Health facilities,
This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on September 23, 2016.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA is amending 38 CFR part 17 as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections.
Sections 17.640 and 17.647 also issued under Pub. L. 114-2, sec. 4.
Sections 17.641 through 17.646 also issued under 38 U.S.C. 501(a) and Pub. L. 114-2, sec. 4.
The purpose of §§ 17.640 through 17.647 is to establish the requirements for the program for the repayment of educational loans (PREL) obtained by physician residents pursuing a certification in psychiatry.
The following definitions apply to §§ 17.640 through 17.647.
(1) Loans obtained from family members, relatives, or friends;
(2) Loans made prior to, or after, the individual's qualifying education;
(3) Any portion of a consolidated loan that is not specifically identified with the education and purposes for which the PREL may be authorized, such as home or auto loans merged with educational loans;
(4) Loans for which an individual incurred a service obligation for repayment or agreed to service for future cancellation;
(5) Credit card debt;
(6) Parent Plus Loans;
(7) Loans that have been paid in full;
(8) Loans that are in default, delinquent, not in a current payment status, or have been assumed by a collection agency;
(9) Loans not obtained from a bank, credit union, savings and loan association, not-for-profit organization, insurance company, school, and other financial or credit institution which is subject to examination and supervision in its capacity as a lending institution by an agency of the United States or of the state in which the lender has its principal place of business;
(10) Loans for which supporting documentation is not available;
(11) Loans that have been consolidated with loans of other individuals, such as spouses, children, friends, or other family member; or
(12) Home equity loans or other non-educational loans.
(a)
(1) Be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
(2) Be enrolled in the final year of a post-graduate physician residency program leading to either a specialty qualification in psychiatric medicine or a subspecialty qualification of psychiatry (the program must be accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education or the American Osteopathic Association, and, by the time of VA employment, must:
(i) Have completed all psychiatry residency training;
(ii) Have received a completion certificate from the Program Director confirming successful completion of the residency program; and
(iii) Certify intention to apply for board certification in the specialty of psychiatry (through the American Board of Medical Specialties or the American Osteopathic Association) within two years after completion of residency.
(3) Be licensed or eligible for licensure to practice medicine by meeting the following requirements by the time of VA employment:
(i) Have at least one full, active, current, and unrestricted license that authorizes the licensee to practice in any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;
(ii) Document graduation from a school of medicine accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or the American Osteopathic Association; or, if an international medical graduate, verify that requirements for certification by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates have been met.
(b) Simultaneous participation in another repayment program. Any applicant who, at the time of application, is participating in any other program of the Federal Government that repays the educational loans of the applicant is not eligible to participate in the PREL.
(a)
(b)
(1) One letter of reference from the Program Director of the core psychiatry program in which the applicant trained or is training, or the Program Director of any psychiatry subspecialty program in which the applicant is training, which indicates that the applicant is in good to excellent standing;
(2) One or more letters of reference from faculty members under which the applicant trained;
(3) One letter of reference from a peer colleague who is familiar with the psychiatry practice and character of the applicant.
(c)
(1) A cover letter that provides the following information:
(i) Why the applicant is interested in VA employment;
(ii) The applicant's interest in working at a particular VA medical facility;
(iii) Likely career goals, including career goals in VA; and
(iv) A brief summary of past employment or training and accomplishments, including any particular clinical areas of interest (
(2) The following information must be provided on a VA form or online collection system and is subject to VA verification:
(i) Attestation that the applicant is not participating in any other loan repayment program.
(ii) A summary of the applicant's educational debt, which includes the total debt amount and when the debt was acquired. The health professional debt covered the loan must be specific to education that was required, used, and qualified the applicant for appointment as a psychiatrist.
(ii) The name of the lending agency that provided the educational loan.
(3) A full curriculum vitae.
(a)
(1) The applicant meets all of the eligibility criteria in § 17.642 and has submitted a complete application under § 17.643;
(2) The strength of the applicant's letters of reference;
(4) The applicant is in good to excellent standing in the residency program, as determined from the Program Director letter of reference;
(5) The applicant demonstrates a strong commitment to VA's mission and core values;
(6) The applicant has personal career goals that match VA needs (
(7) The applicant's expresses a desire to work at a location that matches with VA needs; and
(8) The applicant does not have any identifiable circumstances relating to education, training, licensure, certification and review of health status, previous experience, clinical privileges, professional references, malpractice history and adverse actions, or criminal violations that would adversely affect the applicant's credentialing process.
(b)
(c)
(a)
(2) An educational loan repayment may not exceed the actual amount of principal and interest on an educational loan or loans.
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service announces the issuance of the
This final rule is effective on September 29, 2016. The incorporation by reference of the IMM is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 29, 2016.
Lizbeth Dobbins, (202) 268-3789.
The
Foreign relations; Incorporation by reference.
In view of the considerations discussed above, the Postal Service hereby amends 39 CFR part 20 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 407, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
(a) Section 552(a) of title 5, U.S.C., relating to the public information requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, provides in pertinent part that matter reasonably available to the class of persons affected thereby is deemed published in the
(b) The current Issue of the IMM is incorporated by reference in paragraph (a) of this section. Successive Issues of the IMM are listed in Table 1:
The provisions of the
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service announces the issuance of the
This final rule is effective on September 29, 2016. The incorporation by reference of the DMM dated July 11, 2016, is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 29, 2016.
Lizbeth Dobbins (202) 268-3789.
The most recent issue of the
Changes to mailing standards will continue to be published through
Administrative practice and procedure, Incorporation by reference.
In view of the considerations discussed above, the Postal Service hereby amends 39 CFR part 111 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
(f) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
Because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received adverse comment, we are withdrawing the direct final rule titled, “Technical Correction to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter,” published on August 11, 2016.
Effective September 29, 2016, the EPA withdraws the direct final rule published at 81 FR 53006 on August 11, 2016.
Mr. Brett Gantt, Air Quality Assessment Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (Mail Code: C304-04), Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number: 919-541-5274; fax number: 919-541-3613; email address:
Because the EPA received adverse comment, we are withdrawing the direct final rule titled, “Technical Correction to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter,” published on August 11, 2016 (81 FR 53006). We stated in that direct final rule that if we received adverse comment by September 12, 2016, the direct final rule would not take effect and we would publish a timely withdrawal in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
In reviewing past State Implementation Plan (SIP) actions, the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discovered minor typographical errors related to the EPA's previous approvals of Chapter 173-400 Washington Administrative Code,
This rule is effective on November 28, 2016, without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by October 31, 2016. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0493 at
Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-0256; email address:
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
In final actions published October 3, 2014 (79 FR 59653) and April 29, 2015 (80 FR 23721), the EPA approved Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-400-110
The EPA has determined that the typographical errors referenced above should be corrected at this time. The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this
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 correcting minor typographical errors related to the incorporation by reference contained in 40 CFR 52.2470(c)
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in Washington except as specifically noted below and is also not approved to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Washington's SIP is approved to apply on non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the
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 November 28, 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 this
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting, and Recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated above, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), on September 25, 2013. The SIP submittal includes a change to the TDEC regulation “Logs and Reports.” EPA is approving this SIP revision because it is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA
This rule will be effective October 31, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0403. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9089 or via electronic mail at
EPA is approving a revision to the Tennessee SIP submitted by TDEC on September 25, 2013. Specifically, the submittal includes a change to remove the existing text of subparagraph (2) from Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulation (TAPCR) Rule 1200-3-20-.04, “Logs and Reports,” and replace it with the word “Reserved.” Subparagraph (2) provided that all sources located in or having a significant impact on a nonattainment area submit a quarterly report to the Technical Secretary of Tennessee's Air Pollution Control Board that: (1) Identifies periods of startups, shutdowns, and/or malfunctions (SSM events) that result in an exceedance of an emission limitation, (2) estimates the excess emissions released during such SSM events, and (3) provides total source emissions where such emissions are not otherwise required to be reported under Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations (TAPCR) Chapters 1200-3-10-.02 or 1200-3-16. EPA is approving Tennessee's September 25, 2013, SIP revision because the proposed revision is consistent with the requirements of the CAA and federal regulations governing SIPs. EPA received no comments on the July 27, 2016 (81 FR 49201), proposed rulemaking.
The CAA and rules governing SIPs in 40 CFR part 51 require recordkeeping and reporting to ensure that sources are in compliance with enforceable emission limits. Paragraph (2) of TAPCR Rule 1200-3-20-.04 initially helped to satisfy these requirements by providing for quarterly reports of excess emissions during SSM events, as well as total quarterly emissions. Removing this paragraph eliminates a set of requirements covering all source types, including major sources; sources that restrain their “potential to emit” to a level that is below the major source applicability threshold through the use of emissions control, restriction on hours of operation, or other means (“synthetic minor source”); and those sources for which potential emissions are below the major source thresholds, even assuming no emission controls and unlimited hours of operation (“true minor sources”). Tennessee's September 25, 2013, SIP submittal demonstrates that CAA requirements for recordkeeping and reporting will continue to be met, as applicable, considering other federal and state regulations.
Major sources in Tennessee are subject to title V of the CAA at 40 CFR part 70. This requires: (1) Sources to submit reports of any required monitoring at least every six months at 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), including all instances of deviations from permit requirements; (2) an annual compliance certification at 40 CFR 70.6(c)(5); and (3) prompt reporting of deviations from permit requirements at 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B). TDEC has adopted these requirements into its federally-approved title V operating permits program at TAPCR Rule 1200-3-9-.02(11)(e)1(iii)(III)I, 1200-3-9-.02(11)(e)3(v), and 1200-3-9-.02(11)(e)1(iii)(III)II, respectively.
In addition to the title V reporting requirements, Tennessee's SIP authorizes the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board's Technical Secretary to require enhanced reporting as needed to verify that a “major stationary source” is operating in compliance with applicable requirements.
Regarding total emissions, the State is also required to report to EPA triennial reports of annual (12-month) emissions for all sources and every-year reports of annual emissions of criteria air pollutants and their precursors for all major sources as well as annual emissions reporting from certain larger sources.
Synthetic minor sources, in accordance with SIP-approved TAPCR 1200-3-9-.02(11)(a), are subject to an enforceable limit restricting potential to emit and must implement “detailed monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements that prove the source is abiding by its more restrictive emission and/or production limits.” TDEC's synthetic minor permits require: (1) Prompt reporting of any non-compliance with permit conditions designed to restrict “potential to emit” below the major source level (the “synthetic minor limit”), (2) submission of an annual compliance certification supported by records documenting the
Reserving paragraph TAPCR 1200-3-20-.04(2) eliminates the requirement that true minor sources report excess emissions and total emissions to the State. There is no general federal requirement for true minor sources to directly report their emissions to the state or to EPA. The State explains in its submittal that true minor sources were never intended to be required to make these types of reports, but that the regulated community has expanded to include many smaller sources since the Rule's adoption in the TAPCR in 1979. Total emissions from true minor sources are still considered, either in aggregate or via specific reporting. True minor sources with emissions of oxides of nitrogen or volatile organic compounds above 25 tons per year (tpy) report total emissions annually to the State in ozone nonattainment areas, pursuant to TAPCR 1200-3-18-.02(8). Additionally, the AERR requires the state to report emissions from sources at lower thresholds for select criteria air pollutants or precursors in certain nonattainment areas, which may include true minor sources. The AERR also provides for reporting of lead emissions greater than or equal to 0.5 tpy, regardless of an area's attainment status with respect to the lead NAAQS. Otherwise, emissions from true minor sources are reported to EPA in aggregate in accordance with the AERR. Finally, Tennessee noted the Technical Secretary's authority under 1200-3-10-.02(1)(a) to collect reports from “any air contaminant source.” TDEC explains that if there were a reason to think a true minor source was impacting air quality standards, the Division of Air Pollution Control could collect these reports of emissions.
The combination of federal reporting requirements, reporting requirements under Tennessee's SIP, and Tennessee's authority to request additional information on source emissions when necessary, provide that Tennessee's September 25, 2013, SIP revision does not impair Tennessee's ability to determine the nature and amount of emissions from both major and minor sources and whether such sources are operating in compliance with Tennessee's SIP. Accordingly, EPA's final approval of Tennessee's September 25, 2013, SIP revision is consistent with the minimum SIP requirements pertaining to enforceability and emissions reporting. For more information, see the July 27, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 49201). EPA received no comments on the proposed rulemaking.
In this action, EPA is not approving or disapproving revisions to any existing emission limitations that apply during SSM events. EPA notes that on June 12, 2015 (80 FR 33840), the Agency published a formal finding that a number of states have SIPs with SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance. Accordingly, EPA issued a formal “SIP call” requiring the affected states to make a SIP submission to correct the deficient SSM regulations.
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of TAPCR 1200-3-20-.04, entitled “Logs and Reports,” effective June 19, 2013, which removed a quarterly reporting requirement for total emissions and for excess emissions during SSM. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally-enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.
EPA is taking final action to approve the September 25, 2013, Tennessee SIP revision. This final approval includes the section 110(l) demonstration that modifying the SIP to remove TAPCR 1200-3-20-.04(2) will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA, and the demonstration that the SIP revision is consistent with section 193 of the Act because it does not address any emissions reduction or emissions control requirement and will have no effect on the emissions of any air pollutant.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive 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 CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 28, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42.U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies a community where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that is scheduled for suspension on the effective date listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
The effective date of the community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4149.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
In addition, FEMA published a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in this community. The date of the FIRM is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the community listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because the community listed in this final rule has been adequately notified. In accordance with 44 CFR 59.24(d), the community received a 30-day notification letter addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this Order on Reconsideration, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) provides more flexibility to radio equipment manufacturers interested in the marketing and sale of 700 MHz equipment to public safety agencies by revising the Commission's rules and providing more time for interoperability testing of equipment designed to operate on the 700 MHz narrowband interoperability channels.
Effective September 29, 2016, except for §§ 2.1033(c)(20) and 90.548(c), containing new or modified information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which will become effective after such approval, on the effective date specified in a notification that the Commission will publish in the
John Evanoff, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-0848 or
This is a summary of the Commission's Order on Reconsideration in PS Docket No. 13-87, FCC 16-111, released on August 22, 2016. The document is available for download at
In 2014, the Commission adopted a Report and Order in the captioned proceeding, which,
In this Order on Reconsideration, the Commission grants the Petition in part and modifies those rules to provide greater flexibility to manufacturers considering the marketing and sale of equipment to public safety. In particular, this Order on Reconsideration allows CAP compliance or the equivalent to be demonstrated after equipment certification but prior to the marketing or sale of that equipment. Thereby manufacturers may obtain FCC equipment authorization for equipment designed to operate on the 700 MHz narrowband interoperability channels before obtaining P-25 CAP approval or the equivalent. P-25 CAP approval, or the equivalent, however, must be obtained before equipment is marketed or sold, thus mitigating the risk to public safety, including state and local governmental entities, that equipment purchased may not be interoperable across vendors. Lack of interoperability can severely compromise public safety agencies' response to emergencies. The Commission concludes that CAP compliance or the equivalent completed before the marketing or sale of equipment to public safety mitigates the risk of lack of interoperability while accommodating the needs of manufacturers for flexibility in the equipment certification and P-25 CAP, or equivalent, processes. For these reasons, the Commission modifies Sections 2.1033(c)(20) and 90.548(c) of the rules.
Separately, in response to a request for clarification filed by the National Regional Planning Council (NRPC), the Commission clarifies that states may delegate administration of the 700 MHz air-ground channels to the 700 MHz Regional Planning Committees (RPCs). The Commission also amends Section 90.535 of the Commission's rules to reflect its previous decision to eliminate the 700 MHz narrowbanding deadline. Additionally, the Commission corrects Sections 90.209 and 90.210 of the Commission's technical rules to accurately reflect bandwidth limitations and emission masks. Finally, the Commission conforms Sections 90.523(a)-(d) to the introductory sentence of Section 90.523, to reflect the restriction of the public safety narrowband spectrum bands to 769-775/799-805 MHz, as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). Pursuant to the RFA, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”) was incorporated into the Report and Order.
This Order on Reconsideration amends the rules adopted in the Report and Order in this proceeding to provide manufacturers with greater flexibility in the equipment authorization process. Those rules required demonstration of Project 25 compliance (through CAP or otherwise) at the time of the filing of the equipment authorization application, when certain aspects of CAP compliance may be more difficult to demonstrate (
This Order on Reconsideration also clarifies that States may delegate the administration of the 700 MHz air-ground channels to 700 MHz Regional Planning Committees; amends Section 90.523 of the rules to accurately reflect the 700 MHz narrowband public safety bands; and amends Section 90.535 of the rules to implement the Commission's decision to eliminate the 700 MHz narrowbanding mandate. Finally, the Order on Reconsideration corrects Sections 90.209 and 90.210 of the Commission's technical rules to accurately reflect the correct bandwidth limitations and emission masks.
The Order on Reconsideration contains new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding.
The Commission will send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
None.
Accordingly,
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 2 and 90 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 336, unless otherwise noted.
(c) * * *
(20) Before equipment operating under part 90 of this chapter and capable of operating on the 700 MHz interoperability channels (See § 90.531(b)(1) of this chapter) may be marketed or sold, the manufacturer thereof shall have a Compliance Assessment Program Supplier's Declaration of Conformity and Summary Test Report or, alternatively, a document detailing how the manufacturer determined that its equipment complies with § 90.548 of this chapter and that the equipment is interoperable across vendors. Submission of a 700 MHz narrowband radio for certification will constitute a representation by the manufacturer that the radio will be shown, by testing, to be interoperable across vendors before it is marketed or sold.
Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156.
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(h) * * *
(5) On any frequency removed from the center of the authorized bandwidth by more than 25 kHz: At least 43 + 10 log (P) dB.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section notwithstanding, no entity is eligible to hold an authorization for a system operating in the 769-775 MHz and 799-805 MHz frequency bands on the basis of services, the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety of life, health or property, that such entity makes commercially available to the public.
(d) Transmitters designed to operate on the channels listed in paragraphs (b)(2), (5), (6), and (7) of § 90.531 must be capable of operating in the voice mode at an efficiency of at least one voice path per 12.5 kHz of spectrum bandwidth.
(c) Transceivers capable of operating on the interoperability channels listed in § 90.531(b)(1) shall not be marketed or sold unless the transceiver has previously been certified for interoperability by the Compliance Assessment Program (CAP) administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; provided, however, that this requirement is suspended if the CAP is discontinued. Submission of a 700 MHz narrowband radio for certification will constitute a representation by the manufacturer that the radio will be shown, by testing, to be interoperable across vendors before it is marketed or sold. In the alternative, manufacturers may employ their own protocol for verifying compliance with Project 25 standards and determining that their product is interoperable among vendors. In the event that field experience reveals that a transceiver is not interoperable, the Commission may require the manufacturer thereof to provide evidence of compliance with this section.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
In this rulemaking action, NHTSA is finalizing procedures for obtaining an exemption from the vehicle theft prevention standard for vehicles equipped with immobilizers.
An immobilizer is an anti-theft device that combines microchip and transponder technology with engine and fuel immobilizer components that can prevent vehicles from starting unless a verified code is received by the transponder. This final rule streamlines the exemption procedure for immobilizer-equipped vehicles by adding performance criteria for immobilizers. The criteria, which roughly correlate with the types of qualities for which petitioners have been submitting testing and technical design details under existing procedures, closely follow the immobilizer performance requirements in the anti-theft standard of Canada. After this final rule, it would be sufficient for a manufacturer seeking the exemption of some of its vehicles to provide data showing that the device meets the performance criteria, as well as a statement that the device is durable and reliable. Adopting these performance criteria for immobilizers bring the U.S. anti-theft requirements more into line with those of Canada.
Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
This rulemaking action amends 49 CFR part 543,
The criteria, which roughly correlate with the types of qualities for which petitioners have been submitting testing and technical design details under existing procedures, use the same four performance requirements from the Transport Canada standard. For those performance requirements, the Canadian standard also sets forth tests that manufacturers of vehicles to be sold in Canada must certify to Canadian authorities that they have conducted.
Adopting these performance criteria would simplify the exemption process for manufacturers who installed immobilizers meeting those criteria. Currently, in their petitions for exemption, vehicle manufacturers describe the testing that they have conducted on the immobilizer device and aspects of design of the immobilizer that address the areas of performance which the agency has determined are important to gauge the effectiveness of the immobilizer in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft. Adding performance criteria for immobilizers as another means of qualifying for an exemption from the U.S. theft prevention standard will allow manufacturers that are installing immobilizers as standard equipment for a line of motor vehicles in compliance with Canadian theft prevention standards to more easily gain an exemption here. This would reduce the amount of material that manufacturers would need to submit to obtain an exemption because manufacturers would only be required to indicate and demonstrate that the immobilizer met the performance criteria and was durable and reliable to be eligible for an exemption.
This final rule allows manufacturers to obtain an exemption from the theft prevention standards by complying with any of the four performance criteria currently accepted by Transport Canada. The adoption of the performance criteria for immobilizers would bring the U.S. anti-theft requirements more into line with those of Canada. This harmonization of U.S. and Canadian requirements is being undertaken pursuant to ongoing bilateral regulatory cooperation efforts. Additionally, two of the performance criteria added by this rule are United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) standards, which will allow for greater global harmonization.
We are retaining the current criteria for gaining an exemption from the vehicle theft prevention standard. Therefore, manufacturers would still be able to petition the agency to install other anti-theft devices as standard equipment in a vehicle line to obtain an exemption from the theft prevention standard. While NHTSA has granted many petitions for exemption from the theft prevention standard for vehicle lines equipped with an immobilizer type anti-theft device, we note that a manufacturer is not required to install an immobilizer in order to gain an exemption. We note also that this would not increase the number of exemptions from the theft prevention standard available to a manufacturer.
The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act (the Theft Act), 49 U.S.C. 33101
Pursuant to the Theft Act, NHTSA issued 49 CFR part 541,
NHTSA promulgated part 543 to establish the process for submitting petitions for exemption from the parts marking requirements in the theft prevention standard. A manufacturer may petition the agency for an exemption from the parts marking requirements for one vehicle line per model year if the manufacturer installs an anti-theft device as standard equipment on the entire line. In order to be eligible for an exemption, part 543 requires manufacturers to submit a petition explaining how the anti-theft device will promote activation, attract attention to the efforts of unauthorized persons to enter or operate a vehicle by means other than a key, prevent defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons, prevent operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants, and ensure the reliability and durability of the device. Based on the materials in the petition, NHTSA decides whether to grant the petition in whole or in part or to deny it.
Under the existing part 543, manufacturers choose how they wish to demonstrate to the agency that the anti-theft device they are installing in a vehicle line meets the factors listed in § 543.6. Manufacturers provide differing levels of detail in their exemption petitions. Manufacturers typically provide engineering diagrams of the anti-theft device, a description of how the device functions, and testing to show that the device is durable and reliable in their petitions for exemption. Manufacturers also describe how the design of the anti-theft device satisfies the factors listed in § 543.6.
Nearly 700,000 motor vehicle thefts took place in the U.S. in 2013, causing a loss of mobility and economic hardship to those affected.
An immobilizer is a type of anti-theft device based on microchip and transponder technology and combined with engine and fuel immobilizer components. When activated, an immobilizer device disables the
NHTSA is aware of several sources of information demonstrating the effectiveness of immobilizer devices in reducing motor vehicle theft. In the 1980s, General Motors Corporation (GM) used an early generation of microchip devices, which later developed into the rolling code transponder device, which is currently installed in GM as well as many other vehicles. According to the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), immobilizer devices are up to 50 percent effective in reducing vehicle theft.
Mitsubishi Motors Corporation informed the agency that the theft rate for its MY 2000 Eclipse vehicle line (with an immobilizer device) was almost 42 percent lower than that of its MY 1999 Eclipse (without a immobilizer device).
On February 4, 2011, the U.S. and the Canadian governments created a United States-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC), composed of senior regulatory, trade and foreign affairs officials from both governments. In recognition of the two countries' $1 trillion annual trade and investment relationship, the RCC is working together to promote economic growth, job creation and benefits to consumers and businesses through increased regulatory transparency and coordination.
On December 7, 2011, the RCC established an initial Joint Action Plan that identified 29 initiatives where the U.S. and Canada will seek greater alignment in their regulatory approaches. The Joint Action Plan highlights the areas and initiatives which were identified for initial focus. These areas include agriculture and food, transportation, health and personal care products and workplace chemicals, environment and cross-sectoral issues. One of the topics for regulatory cooperation identified in the transportation area is to pursue greater harmonization of existing motor vehicle standards. Theft prevention is one of the harmonization opportunities identified by the Motor Vehicles Working Group.
In addition to the theft and rollaway prevention requirements included in the U.S. version of the standard, CMVSS No. 114 requires the installation of an immobilization system for all new passenger vehicles, MPVs and trucks certified to the standard with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg or less, with some exceptions. CMVSS No. 114 contains four different sets of requirements for immobilizers. The four sets of requirements are National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98, Automobile Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization (May 1998); United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) Regulation No. 97 (ECE R97) in effect August 8, 2007, Uniform Provisions Concerning Approval of Vehicle Alarm System (VAS) and Motor Vehicles with Regard to Their Alarm System (AS); UN/ECE Regulation No. 116 (ECE R116), Uniform Technical Prescriptions Concerning the Protection of Motor Vehicles Against Unauthorized Use in effect on February 10, 2009; and a set of requirements derived from the CAN/ULC 338-98 standard and ECE R97 developed by Transport Canada to increase manufacturer design flexibility (in effect March 30, 2011). Vehicles certified to CMVSS No. 114 must be equipped with an immobilizer meeting one of these four sets of requirements. Used motor vehicles imported into Canada must also be equipped with immobilizers meeting CMVSS No. 114. This requirement makes it more difficult to import into Canada motor vehicles manufactured in the U.S. that are not equipped with an immobilizer meeting CMVSS No. 114. In such cases, an immobilizer that complies with CMVSS No. 114, usually an aftermarket device, must be added to the vehicle before it can be imported into Canada.
CAN/ULC-S338-98 contains design specifications, activation and deactivation requirements, durability tests, and tests to assess the resistance to physical attack for immobilizers. ECE R97 and ECE R116 contain design specifications, activation and deactivation requirements, durability tests, and tests to assess the resistance to physical attack for immobilizers similar to those contained in CAN/ULC-S338-98. The fourth set of requirements for immobilizers in CMVSS No. 114 contains design specifications, activation and deactivation requirements, and requirements testing the ability of the immobilizer to resist deactivation by physical attack derived from the other standards. The fourth set of requirements, however, does not include the environmental tests and durability requirements that are included in CAN/ULC-S338-98, ECE R97 and ECE R116.
In adopting the fourth set of performance requirements for immobilizers contained in CMVSS No. 114, Transport Canada stated that some of the environmental and durability requirements for immobilizers contained in CAN/ULC-S338-98, ECE R97, and ECE R116 were developed for aftermarket immobilizers and should not be applied to immobilizers that are installed as original equipment on a vehicle.
The agency proposed to include performance criteria for immobilizers in part 543 so that manufacturers may more easily apply for exemptions from the parts marking requirements for vehicles lines with immobilizers conforming to CMVSS No. 114. NHTSA proposed to add performance criteria to part 543 to make our theft prevention standards more in line with those of Canada. In order to be eligible for an exemption under the proposal, manufacturers would be required to state and demonstrate that the immobilizer device they are installing in the vehicle line meets the proposed performance criteria and is durable and reliable.
The agency believes that adding performance criteria from CMVSS No. 114 to part 543 is the simplest way to make our anti-theft regulations more in line with that standard and to reduce the burden to manufacturers, who are already installing immobilizers in compliance with that standard, of applying for an exemption from the parts marking requirements. The agency could not add performance requirements for immobilizers as part of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 114, Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention, since doing so would require a determination that the additional requirements would be consistent with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Motor Vehicle Safety Act).
Prior to this final rule, NHTSA had not formally or informally adopted any technical performance criteria for anti-theft devices. While NHTSA has granted many petitions for exemption from the parts marking requirements for vehicle lines equipped with an immobilizer anti-theft device, a manufacturer is not required to install an immobilizer in order to gain an exemption. The agency proposed to retain the current exemption process so that manufacturers would still be able to gain an exemption for installing anti-theft devices that do not conform to the proposed performance criteria for immobilizers. The number of exemptions available to manufacturers would not increase as a result of the proposal. Thus, manufacturers will continue to be eligible for an exemption from the parts marking requirements for only one vehicle line per model year.
NHTSA proposed only the fourth set of performance criteria for immobilizers contained in CMVSS No. 114 for inclusion in part 543. The agency proposed to adopt only this one set of performance criteria because of the factors articulated by Transport Canada discussed in Section C above. Furthermore, the agency proposed adopting only this one set of performance criteria as the simplest way to harmonize anti-theft regulations between the U.S. and Canada. In the proposed rule, NHTSA anticipated the possibility that vehicles equipped with immobilizers meeting the performance criteria in CAN/ULC-S338-98, ECE R97, or ECE R116 would still be able to obtain an exemption from the theft prevention standard via a petition filed under the current exemption procedures. The agency sought comment on whether it should consider including all four performance criteria.
In its proposal, NHTSA tentatively concluded that immobilizers meeting the proposed performance criteria are likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts marking requirements in part 541. The agency has granted numerous exemptions from the theft prevention standard for vehicle lines equipped with immobilizers based on data submitted by manufacturers indicating that immobilizers were as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with that standard. Several studies have also indicated that immobilizers designed to meet technical performance criteria are effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft. Studies in Australia and Canada on the effectiveness of immobilization systems (which meet CAN/ULC-S338-98 or ECE R97 and ECE R116) have shown reduced incidence of theft compared to vehicles that were not equipped with immobilizers.
For these reasons, the agency concluded that establishing performance criteria for immobilizers as a means of getting an exemption from the theft prevention standard is consistent with 49 U.S.C. 33106 of the Theft Act. That section requires the agency to determine that an anti-theft device is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts marking requirements in part 541 in order to grant an exemption from those requirements.
The proposed performance criteria for immobilizers included specifications for when the immobilizer should arm after the disarming device is removed from the vehicle. The performance criteria state that, when armed, the immobilizer should prevent the vehicle from moving more than three meters under its own power by inhibiting the operation of at least one of the vehicle's electronic control units (ECU). Further, the performance criteria state that, when armed, the immobilizer should not disable the vehicle's brake system. During the disarming process, the immobilizer should send a code to the inhibited ECU to allow the vehicle to move under its own power. The immobilizer should be configured so that disrupting the device's normal operating voltage cannot disarm the immobilizer. Additionally, the immobilizer must have a minimum capacity for 50,000 code variants and shall not be capable of processing more than 5,000 codes within 24 hours unless the immobilizer uses rolling or encrypted codes. The performance criteria state that it shall not be possible to replace the immobilizer without the use of software. In order to satisfy the performance criteria, the immobilizer in a vehicle must be designed so that it is not possible to disarm it using common tools within five minutes.
In order to promote understanding of the new terms used in the regulatory text, the agency also proposed definitions for “immobilizer” and “accessory mode.”
The agency plans on ensuring that immobilizer devices that manufacturers are installing to obtain an exemption conform with the proposed performance criteria by requiring manufacturers to state that they have certified the immobilizer installed on the vehicle to the performance criteria of CMVSS No. 114. Manufacturers must be ready to
The proposed regulatory text did not include a requirement that manufacturers provide a detailed description of the immobilizer device as part of the petition because we believe that the documentation that manufacturers are keeping to provide to Transport Canada, and that they would be required to provide to NHTSA, describes the immobilizer device in sufficient detail for the agency to be able to determine whether the device satisfies the performance criteria.
The proposed performance criteria did not include specifications that address the durability and reliability of immobilizers because the agency was concerned about the limitations such specifications could pose to immobilizer designs. Part 543 currently requires manufacturers to explain how the design of their immobilizer device ensures that it is durable and reliable in order to be eligible for an exemption.
The agency stated it believes the proposed performance criteria are consistent with the following anti-theft device attributes that are currently contained in part 543:
• The specification in the proposed performance criteria that the immobilizer arm after the disarming device is removed from the vehicle will facilitate activation of the immobilizer by the driver and prevent unauthorized persons who have entered the vehicle by means other than a key from operating the vehicle.
• The specification in the proposed performance criteria that the immobilizer have certain code processing capabilities and be resistant to physical attack will ensure that the immobilizer is designed to prevent defeat or circumvention by persons entering the vehicle by means other than a key.
The proposed performance criteria correspond to the aspects of performance of immobilizer devices that manufacturers now qualitatively describe in their exemption petitions. Manufacturers are currently demonstrating the effectiveness of immobilizers by describing the testing the immobilizer has been subjected to, how the immobilizer is activated, how the immobilizer interacts with the key to allow the vehicle to start and the encryption of electronic communications between the key and the immobilizer. These characteristics correspond to performance criteria in the proposal for how the immobilizer must arm, preventing the vehicle from moving under its own power, how the immobilizer must disarm to allow the driver to start the vehicle, the minimum number of code variants that the immobilizer is able to process, and the immobilizer's resistance to manipulation and physical attack. The proposed performance criteria simplify the process for applying for an exemption because manufacturers would no longer need to describe how the immobilizer achieves these aspects of performance. Instead, manufacturers would only need to state and demonstrate that their immobilizer device conforms to the performance criteria, and is durable and reliable.
In order to allow manufacturers to more easily apply for an exemption from the theft prevention standard and to reduce the burden to the agency in processing exemption petitions we tentatively decided that we will notify manufacturers of decisions to grant or deny exemption petitions by notifying them of the agency's decision in writing. As proposed, we would not publish notices of our decisions to grant or deny exemption petitions from the theft prevention standard based on the manufacturer having satisfied the performance criteria in the
NHTSA received two comments on the proposed rule. Commenters were generally supportive of the proposal because it allows for improved harmonization with Canada, but expressed concerns about the documentation required to obtain an exemption and allowing for more compliance options similar to Transport Canada's CMVSS No. 114.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) expressed a procedural concern with the information manufacturers must provide to NHTSA in order to obtain an exemption under the proposed regulation. Specifically, the Alliance noted that in order to comply with Canadian law, manufacturers must certify as complying with all applicable CMVSSs—but manufacturers do not routinely provide compliance data to Transport Canada to prove compliance. Because of this, the Alliance suggested that manufacturers only be required to submit a statement that the immobilizer meets the performance requirements noted in the proposal. The Alliance suggested that this statement would eliminate the proposal's requirement to submit the same documentation that demonstrates compliance with CMVSS No. 114.
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota) submitted a comment stating
Transport Canada has a certification process that is similar to NHTSA's “self-certification process.” Under Canada's Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the responsibility rests with the vehicle manufacturer or importer to certify that all new vehicles offered for sale in Canada comply with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Manufacturers or importers certify this by displaying the national safety mark. As a prerequisite to obtaining permission to use the national safety mark, a manufacturer must maintain records demonstrating completion of certification testing. While certification test documentation may not be requested by Transport Canada for every new or imported vehicle in Canada, the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires such records be available should Transport Canada request them.
NHTSA believes that providing only a statement of compliance with CMVSS No. 114 is insufficient to justify an exemption from the theft prevention standard. Moreover, the data NHTSA will require is data manufacturers should be keeping in order to facilitate any compliance verification requests from Transport Canada.
The agency currently receives petitions for exemptions from manufacturers that present justification for receiving an exemption. This application includes an explanation of how the anti-theft device will promote activation, attract attention to the efforts of unauthorized persons to enter or operate a vehicle by means other than a key, prevent defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons, prevent operation of the vehicle by unauthorized persons to enter or operate a vehicle by unauthorized entrants, and ensure the reliability and durability of the device. On those grounds, the agency can evaluate the justification and grant or deny the exemption. This rule seeks to streamline the exemption process by using compliance with certain standards in lieu of submitting separate justifications for exemptions under Part 543. Requiring manufacturers to provide the recordkeeping information required by the Transport Canada to demonstrate CMVSS No. 114 compliance, should Transport Canada ask for the data, allows NHTSA to ensure anti-theft devices installed on vehicles meet the same level of performance as would be expected of an anti-theft device requested through the prior exemption process. Therefore, the agency is finalizing the proposed requirement that manufacturers submit compliance data kept for Transport Canada compliance in order to prove compliance with CMVSS No. 114 standards.
We sought comments on whether adding the standards in CAN/ULC-S338-98,
We proposed Transport Canada's fourth performance criteria because Transport Canada determined that the three other standards were developed for aftermarket immobilizers and had the potential to restrict the design of immobilizers. Finalizing all four performance criteria will provide additional flexibility by allowing OEMs and aftermarket manufacturers to elect the performance criteria most appropriate for their device. It will also improve harmonization with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) immobilizer performance criteria by allowing manufacturers the option of complying with one of two ECE standards and receiving an exemption from the theft prevention standard.
Further, NHTSA believes allowing all four performance standards will be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts marking requirements in part 541. Since 2007, when Transport Canada began requiring OEMs to install immobilizers meeting one of the four performance criteria for most vehicles, theft in Canada has decreased more than 50 percent.
The agency has modified the regulatory text to reflect the inclusion of all four performance criteria. As a result of doing so, NHTSA has moved the originally proposed criteria from C.R.C, c. 1038.114,
This rule amends part 543 to add performance criteria for immobilizers that are contained in CMVSS No. 114. Because the agency is retaining the current exemption process as a means of gaining an exemption from the theft prevention standard, the addition of performance criteria to part 543 would result in no costs to manufacturers. Manufacturers would not be required to make any changes to products in order to retain eligibility for an exemption.
The agency cannot quantify the benefits of this rulemaking. The agency does, however, expect some benefits to accrue from making the exemption process in part 543 more closely harmonized with CMVSS No. 114. Additionally, since two of the accepted performance criteria added by this rule
Adding the performance criteria would allow manufacturers that are installing immobilizers as standard equipment for a line of motor vehicles in compliance with CMVSS No. 114 to more easily gain an exemption from the parts marking requirements. The agency believes this would reduce the cost to manufacturers of applying for an exemption from the parts marking requirements. Adding performance criteria to part 543 would also result in a reduction in vehicle theft in cases for which the rule improves the effectiveness of the anti-theft devices chosen by manufacturers.
If the rule encourages more manufacturers to install immobilizers meeting CMVSS No. 114 on vehicles sold in the United States, it could result in cost savings to consumers seeking to import used vehicles into Canada. Importing used vehicles that already comply with CMVSS No. 114 into Canada saves consumers from having to pay to have an aftermarket immobilizer installed in the vehicle.
The compliance date will be 60 days after the date of issuance of the publication of this final rule.
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” It is not considered to be significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's regulatory policies and procedures.
This rule would amend part 543 to add performance criteria for immobilizers that are contained in CMVSS No. 114 to allow manufacturers who are installing immobilizers in compliance with that standard to more easily obtain an exemption from the theft prevention standard.
The agency concludes that the impacts of the changes would be so minimal that preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not required. This rule would not result in any costs to manufacturers because the current exemption process would be left in place. Manufacturers would not be required to make any changes to current vehicles to retain eligibility for an exemption. It is also possible that this rule would result in a reduction in motor vehicle thefts if immobilizers meeting the performance criteria are more effective than current designs.
The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides, in part:
The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
NHTSA is issuing this rule pursuant to a regulatory cooperation agreement between the United States and Canada. This rule would more closely harmonize vehicle theft regulations in the United States with those in Canada.
We have reviewed this rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
NHTSA has considered the effects of the rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule amends part 543 to add performance criteria for immobilizers that are contained in CMVSS No. 114 to allow manufacturers who are installing immobilizers in compliance with that standard to more easily obtain an exemption from the theft prevention standard. This rule would not significantly affect any entities because it would leave in place the current exemption process so that manufacturers would not need to make any changes to products to retain eligibility for an exemption. Accordingly, we do not anticipate that this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729; Feb. 7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties file suit in court; (6) adequately defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. There is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court. NHTSA has considered whether this rulemaking would have any retroactive effect. This rule does not have any retroactive effect.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of a proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
This rule is not anticipated to result in the expenditure by state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million annually. The cost impact of this rule is expected to be $0. Therefore, the agency has not prepared an economic assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501,
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law (
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as “performance-based or design-specific technical specification and related management systems practices.” They pertain to “products and processes, such as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or material.”
Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards.
We are not aware of any technical performance criteria for immobilizers issued by voluntary consensus standards bodies in the United States. For the reasons discussed in this notice, the agency has determined that the simplest way to harmonize part 543 with Canadian theft prevention regulations was to adopt all four performance criteria discussed above.
Executive Order 13211
This rule amends part 543 to add performance criteria for immobilizers that are contained in CMVSS No. 114 to allow manufacturers who are installing immobilizers in compliance with that standard to more easily obtain an exemption from the theft prevention standard. Therefore, this rule would not have any significant adverse energy effects. Accordingly, this rulemaking action is not designated as a significant energy action.
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.
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR chapter V as follows.
49 U.S.C. 322, 33101, 33102, 33103, 33104 and 33105; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
(b) * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Be submitted in three copies to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
(6) Identify whether the exemption is sought under § 543.6 or § 543.7.
(7) If the exemption is sought under § 543.6, set forth in full the data, views, and arguments of the petitioner supporting the exemption, including the information specified in that section.
(8) If the exemption is sought under § 543.7, submission of the information required in that section.
(9) Specify and segregate any part of the information or data submitted that the petitioner requests be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with part 512,
A petition submitted under this section must include:
(a) A statement that the entire line of vehicles is equipped with an immobilizer, as standard equipment, that meets one of the following:
(1) The performance criteria (subsections 8 through 21) of C.R.C, c. 1038.114,
(2) National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98,
(3) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) Regulation No. 97 (ECE R97),
(4) UN/ECE Regulation No. 116 (ECE R116),
(b) Compliance documentation kept to demonstrate the basis for certification with the performance criteria specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) A statement that the immobilizer device is durable and reliable.
(f) If the petition is sought under § 543.6, NHTSA publishes a notice of its decision to grant or deny an exemption petition in the
(g) If the petition is sought under § 543.7, NHTSA notifies the petitioner in writing of the agency's decision to grant or deny an exemption petition.
Each exemption under this part continues in effect unless it is modified or terminated under § 543.10, or the manufacturer ceases production of the exempted line.
In order to be eligible for an exemption under § 543.7(a)(1), the entire vehicle line must be equipped with an immobilizer meeting the following criteria:
(1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this appendix, an immobilization system shall arm automatically within a period of not more than 1 minute after the disarming device is removed from the vehicle, if the vehicle remains in a mode of operation other than accessory mode or on throughout that period.
(2) If the disarming device is a keypad or biometric identifier, the immobilization system shall arm automatically within a period of not more than 1 minute after the motors used for the vehicle's propulsion are turned off, if the vehicle remains in a mode of operation other than accessory mode or on throughout that period.
(3) The immobilization system shall arm automatically not later than 2 minutes after the immobilization system is disarmed, unless:
(i) Action is taken for starting one or more motors used for the vehicle's propulsion;
(ii) Disarming requires an action to be taken on the engine start control or electric motor start control, the engine stop control or electric motor stop control, or the ignition switch; or
(iii) Disarming occurs automatically by the presence of a disarming device and the device is inside the vehicle.
(4) If armed, the immobilization system shall prevent the vehicle from moving more than 3 meters (9.8 feet) under its own power by inhibiting the operation of at least one electronic control unit and shall not have any impact on the vehicle's brake system except that it may prevent regenerative braking and the release of the parking brake.
(5) During the disarming process, a code shall be sent to the inhibited electronic control unit in order to allow the vehicle to move under its own power.
(6) It shall not be possible to disarm the immobilization system by interrupting its normal operating voltage.
(7) When the normal starting procedure requires that the disarming device mechanically latch into a receptacle and the device is physically separate from the ignition switch key, one or more motors used for the vehicle's propulsion shall start only after the device is removed from that receptacle.
(8)(i) The immobilization system shall have a minimum capacity of 50,000 code variants, shall not be disarmed by a code that can disarm all other immobilization systems of the same make and model; and
(ii) subject to paragraph (9) of this appendix, it shall not have the capacity to process more than 5,000 codes within 24 hours.
(9) If an immobilization system uses rolling or encrypted codes, it may conform to the following criteria instead of the criteria set out in paragraph (8)(ii) of this appendix:
(i) The probability of obtaining the correct code within 24 hours shall not exceed 4 per cent; and
(ii) It shall not be possible to disarm the system by re-transmitting in any sequence the previous 5 codes generated by the system.
(10) The immobilization system shall be designed so that, when tested as installed in the vehicle neither the replacement of an original immobilization system component with a manufacturer's replacement component nor the addition of a manufacturer's component can be completed without the use of software; and it is not possible for the vehicle to move under its own power for at least 5 minutes after the beginning of the replacement or addition of a component referred to in this paragraph (1).
(11) The immobilization system's conformity to paragraph (10) of this appendix shall be demonstrated by testing that is carried out without damaging the vehicle.
(12) Paragraph (10)(i) of this appendix does not apply to the addition of a disarming device that requires the use of another disarming device that is validated by the immobilization system.
(13) The immobilization system shall be designed so that it can neither be bypassed nor rendered ineffective in a manner that would allow a vehicle to move under its own power, or be disarmed, using one or more of the tools and equipment listed in paragraph (14) of this appendix;
(i) Within a period of less than 5 minutes, when tested as installed in the vehicle; or
(ii) Within a period of less than 2.5 minutes, when bench-tested outside the vehicle.
(14) During a test referred to in paragraph (13) of this appendix, only the following tools or equipment may be used: Scissors, wire strippers, wire cutters and electrical wires, a hammer, a slide hammer, a chisel, a punch, a wrench, a screwdriver, pliers, steel rods and spikes, a hacksaw, a battery operated drill, a battery operated angle grinder; and a battery operated jigsaw.
C.R.C, c. 1038.114, Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention (in effect March 30, 2011). See: SOR/2011-69 March, 2011 “Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Theft Prevention and Rollaway Prevention—Standard 114)” 2011-03-30 Canada Gazette Part II, Vol 145, No. 7.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine endangered species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, for
This rule is effective October 31, 2016.
This final rule is available on the Internet at
Roxanna Hinzman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960; telephone 772-562-3909; facsimile 772-562-4288. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
• Habitat loss and modification through urban and agricultural development, and lack of adequate fire management (Factor A); and
• The proliferation of nonnative, invasive plants; stochastic events (hurricanes and storm surge); maintenance practices used on roadsides and disturbed sites; and sea level rise (Factor E).
Existing regulatory mechanisms have not been adequate to reduce or remove these threats (Factor D).
Please refer to the proposed listing rule for
Please refer to the proposed listing rule (80 FR 58536; September 29, 2015) for the complete discussion of each plant's description, habitat, taxonomy, distribution, population estimates, climate, historical range, current range, status, and biology.
Below, we present only revisions to the discussions in the Background section of the proposed listing rule based on new information from peer review and public comments; as such, not every plant, or every topic for a plant, will be discussed below.
Please refer to the “Species Description” section of the proposed rule for the complete discussion. We make one minor editorial revision to our description of the plant's fruit, as follows: The fruit is an elongate pod, roughly similar to that of a pea, 33-45 millimeters (mm) (1.3-1.8 inches (in)) long and 4.5-5.0 mm (0.19-0.17 in) wide, with a soft fuzzy texture, which turns gray with age and eventually splits open to release seeds (Irwin and Barneby 1982, p. 757; Small 1933, pp. 662-663).
Please refer to the “Habitat” section of the proposed rule for the complete discussion. In the
Please refer to the “Current Range, Population Estimates, and Status” section of the proposed rule for the complete discussion. We make minor editorial revisions to the first sentence of the third paragraph of that section, as follows: A second indicator, the frequency with which
Please refer to the “Habitat” section of the proposed rule for the complete discussion. Under
Please refer to the “Current Range, Population Estimates, and Status” section of the proposed rule for the complete discussion. We make the following corrections to that discussion:
(1) We correct the description of the current distribution of
(2) We correct our description of the compilation of all survey work to include a missed citation for Possley (2016, pers. comm.). The corrected sentence reads: Based on a compilation of all survey work through 2016, including Austin (1980), Kernan and Bradley (1996, pp. 1-30), Bradley and Gann (1999, pp. 61-65), Hodges and Bradley (2006, pp. 37-41), Bradley and Saha (2009, p. 10), Bradley (2009, p. 3), Hodges (2010, pp. 4-5, 15), Bradley and van der Heiden (2013, pp. 6-12, 19), Bradley
(3) Under
(4) As a result of the corrections described in (1) through (3), above, we present a revised version of the proposed rule's Table 3 (note: in the following table, USFWS stands for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; FWC stands for Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; HARB stands for Homestead Air Reserve Base; and SOCSOUTH stands for Special Operations Command South Headquarters):
Please refer to the “Biology” section of the proposed rule for the complete discussion.
We revise the
Please refer to the “Species Description” section of the proposed rule for the complete discussion. We clarify the description of the leaves of
Please refer to the “Taxonomy” section of the proposed rule for the complete discussion.
To the end of the first paragraph, we add the following: Ingram (1952) indicates the distribution of
Please refer to the “Current Range, Population Estimates, and Status” section of the proposed rule for the complete discussion. We make the following corrections to that discussion:
(1) We correct the data in Table 4, presented below. (Note: In the following table, USFWS stands for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; FWC stands for Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; DOD stands for Department of Defense; and ENP stands for Everglades National Park.)
(2) Because of the corrections presented below for Table 4, the text preceding the table in the proposed rule is now incorrect. Based on the data presented below in Table 4, there are 50 records for
In the proposed rule published on September 29, 2015 (80 FR 58536), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by November 30, 2015. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the Miami Herald and Key West Citizen. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All substantive information provided during the comment period has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed below.
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from three knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
The Service believes that pesticide spraying may be a factor affecting the reproductive success of
Accordingly, the Service commends the FKMCD for its cooperation in recovering endangered butterflies and plants. Nevertheless, we are proceeding cautiously and have initiated a multi-year research project to further investigate the level of impact pesticides have on these four plants.
(7)
We received comments from a peer reviewer who is employed by the Florida Forest Service. Those comments are addressed above under
(8)
None of the new information we received during the comment period on the proposed rule changes our determinations in this final rule for these four plants. Most of the changes are editorial in nature, and are described above in the
• We update the status of several populations of
• We update the discussion of the taxonomy of
• We update our discussion of pesticide applications and pollinators to reflect current application limitations now in effect on Big Pine Key.
The Act directs us to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any one of five factors affecting its continued existence. In this section, we summarize the biological condition of each of the plant species and its resources, and the factors affecting them, to assess the species' overall viability and the risks to that viability.
The modification and destruction of the habitats that support
In Miami-Dade County, development and agriculture have reduced pine rocklands habitat by 90 percent in mainland south Florida. Pine rocklands habitat decreased from approximately 74,000 hectares (ha) (183,000 acres (ac)) in the early 1900s, to only 8,140 ha (20,100 ac) in 1996 (Kernan and Bradley 1996, p. 2). The largest remaining intact pine rocklands (approximately 2,313 ha (5,716 ac)) is located on Long Pine Key in Everglades National Park (ENP). Outside of ENP, only about 1 percent of the pine rocklands on the Miami Rock Ridge have escaped clearing, and much of what is left are small remnants scattered throughout the Miami metropolitan area, isolated from other natural areas (Herndon 1998, p. 1).
Similarly, most of the pine rocklands in the Florida Keys (Monroe County) have been impacted (Hodges and Bradley 2006, p. 6). Pine rocklands historically covered 1,049 ha (2,592 ac) of Big Pine Key (Folk 1991, p. 188), the largest area of pine rocklands in the Florida Keys. Pine rocklands now cover approximately 582 ha (1,438 ac) of the island, a reduction of 56 percent (Bradley and Saha 2009, p. 3). There were no estimates of pine rocklands area on the other islands historically, but each contained much smaller amounts of the habitat than Big Pine Key. Remaining pine rocklands on Cudjoe Key cover 72 ha (178 ac), Little Pine has 53 ha (131 ac), No Name has 56 ha (138 ac), and Sugarloaf has 38 ha (94 ac). The total area of remaining pine rocklands in the Florida Keys is approximately 801 ha (1,979 ac). Currently, about 478 ha (1,181 ac) (82 percent) of the pine rocklands on Big Pine Key, and most of the pine rocklands on these other islands, are protected within the NKDR and properties owned by the Nature Conservancy, the State of Florida, and Monroe County (Bradley and Saha 2009, pp. 3-4). Based on the data presented above, the total remaining acreage of pine rocklands in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties is now 8,981 ha (22,079 ac) (approximately 8,140 ha (20,100 ac) in Miami-Dade County, and 801 ha (1,979 ac) in the Florida Keys (Monroe County)).
The marl prairies that also support
Likewise, habitat modification and destruction from residential and commercial development have severely impacted rockland hammocks, and coastal berm, that support
Pine rocklands, rockland hammock, marl prairie, and coastal habitats on private land remain vulnerable to development, which could lead to the loss of populations of these four species. As noted earlier, all four plants have been impacted by development. The sites of Small's 1907 and 1911
Bradley and Gann (1999, p. 6) list 12 populations of
The largest
Currently there are plans to develop a 55-ha (137-ac) privately-owned portion of the largest remaining area of pine rocklands habitat in Miami-Dade County, the Richmond pine rocklands, with a shopping center and residential construction (RAM 2014, p. 2). Bradley and Gann (1999, p. 4) called the 345-ha (853-ac) Richmond pine rocklands, “the largest and most important area of pine rockland in Miami-Dade County outside of Everglades National Park.” Populations of
Approximately 25 percent of extant
Most pine rocklands and rockland hammock habitat is now limited to public conservation lands, where future development and habitat alteration are less likely than on private lands. However, public lands could be sold off (or leased) in the future and become more likely to be developed or altered in a way that negatively impacts the habitat. For example, at the SOCSOUTH site noted above (leased to DOD by Miami-Dade County), ongoing development of headquarters buildings SOCSOUTH has resulted in the loss of
Roadside populations of
Although no entire populations of
The human population within Miami-Dade County is currently greater than 2.4 million people, and is expected to grow to more than 4 million by 2060, an annual increase of roughly 30,000 people (Zwick and Carr 2006, p. 20). Overall, the human population in Monroe County is expected to increase from 79,589 to more than 92,287 people by 2060 (Zwick and Carr 2006, p. 21). All vacant land in the Florida Keys is projected to be developed by then, including lands currently inaccessible for development, such as islands not attached to the Overseas Highway (U.S. 1) (Zwick and Carr 2006, p. 14). However, in an effort to address the impact of development on federally listed species, Monroe County implemented a habitat conservation plan (HCP) for Big Pine and No Name Keys in 2006. In order to fulfill the HCP's mitigation requirements, the County has been actively acquiring parcels of high-quality pine rocklands, such as The Nature Conservancy's 20-acre Terrestris Tract on Big Pine Key, and managing them for conservation. Although the HCP has helped to limit the impact of development, land development pressure and habitat losses may resume when the HCP expires in 2023. If the HCP is not renewed, residential or commercial development could increase to pre-HCP levels.
While Miami-Dade and Monroe County both have developed a network of public conservation lands that include pine rocklands, rockland hammocks, marl prairies, and coastal habitats, much of the remaining habitat occurs on private lands as well as publicly owned lands not managed for conservation. Species occurrences and suitable habitat remaining on these lands are threatened by habitat loss and degradation, and threats are expected to accelerate with increased development. Further losses will seriously affect the four plant species' ability to persist in the wild and decrease the possibility of their recovery or recolonization.
The remaining pine rocklands in the Miami metropolitan area are severely fragmented and isolated from each other by vast areas of development. Remaining pine rockland areas in the Florida Keys are fragmented and are located on small islands separated by
While pollination research has not been conducted for
In addition to affecting pollination, fragmentation of natural habitats often alters other ecosystems' functions and disturbance regimes. Fragmentation results in an increased proportion of “edge” habitat, which in turn has a variety of effects, including changes in microclimate and community structure at various distances from the edge (Margules and Pressey 2000, p. 248), altered spatial distribution of fire (greater fire frequency in areas nearer the edge) (Cochrane 2001, pp. 1518-1519), and increased pressure from nonnative, invasive plants and animals that may out-compete or disturb native plant populations. Liu and Koptur (2003, p. 1184) reported decreases in
The effects of fragmentation on fire go beyond edge effects and include reduced likelihood and extent of fires, and altered behavior and characteristics (
One of the primary threats to
Today, natural fires are unlikely to occur or are likely to be suppressed in the remaining, highly fragmented pine rocklands habitat. The suppression of natural fires has reduced the size of the areas that burn, and habitat fragmentation has prevented fire from moving across the landscape in a natural way. Without fire, successional climax from pine rocklands to rockland hammock is rapid, and displacement of native species by invasive, nonnative plants often occurs. Understory plants such as
After an extended period of inadequate fire management in pine
Federal (Service, NPS, FFS (Florida Forest Service)), State (FDEP, FWC), and County land managers (Miami-Dade RER and NAM (the Natural Areas Management division of Department of Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces), and nonprofit organizations (Institute for Regional Conservation (IRC), The Nature Conservancy (TNC)) implement prescribed fire on public and private lands within the ranges of these four plants. While management of some County conservation lands includes regular burning, other lands remain severely fire-suppressed. Even in areas under active management, some portions are typically fire-suppressed.
All occurrences of
In Miami-Dade County,
All occurrences of
Prescribed fire management over the past decade has not been sufficient to reverse long-term declines in
Conservation efforts in Miami's EEL Preserves have been underway for many years. In Miami-Dade County, conservation lands are and have been monitored by Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden (FTBG) and IRC, in coordination with the EEL Program, to assess habitat status and determine any changes that may pose a threat to or alter the abundance of these species. Impacts to habitat
Since 2005, the Service has funded IRC to facilitate restoration and management of privately owned pine rocklands habitats in Miami-Dade County. These programs included prescribed burns, nonnative plant control, light debris removal, hardwood management, reintroduction of pines where needed, and development of management plans. One of these programs, called the Pine Rockland Initiative, includes 10-year cooperative agreements between participating landowners and the Service/IRC to ensure restored areas will be managed appropriately during that time. Although most of these objectives have been achieved, IRC has not been able to conduct the desired prescribed burns, due to logistical difficulties as discussed earlier (see “Fire Management,” above).
We have identified a number of threats to the habitat of
The best available data do not indicate that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is a threat to
No diseases or incidences of predation have been reported for
Key deer are known to occasional browse plants indiscriminately, including
Seed predation by an insect occurs in
While seed predation and occasional Key deer browsing may be a stressor, they do not appear to rise to the level of threat at this time. Therefore, the best available data do not indicate that disease or predation is a threat to
Under this factor, we examine whether threats to these plants are discussed under the other factors are continuing due to an inadequacy of an existing regulatory mechanism. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires the Service to take into account “those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species.” In relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret this language to require the Service to consider relevant Federal, State, and tribal laws, regulations, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of the threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the species. We give strongest weight to statutes and their implementing regulations and to management direction that stems from those laws and regulations. Examples are State governmental actions enforced under a State statute or constitution, and Federal actions authorized by statute.
Having evaluated the impact of the threats as mitigated by any such conservation efforts, we analyze under Factor D the extent to which existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the specific threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist, may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified threats. In this section, we review existing Federal, State, and local regulatory mechanisms to determine whether they effectively reduce or remove threats to
As Federal candidate species, the four plants are afforded some protection through sections 7 and 10 of the Act and associated policies and guidelines. Service policy requires that candidate species be treated as proposed species for purposes of intra-Service consultations and conferences where the Service's actions may affect candidate species. Other Federal action agencies (
Populations of
As discussed above under Factor A, the CCPs for the Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuge and the Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge provide for
As discussed under Factor A, above, the DOD has an approved INRMP for KWNAS on Boca Chica Key that includes measures that will protect and enhance
However, certain populations of the four plants occur on State- or county-owned properties, and development of these areas will likely require no Federal permit or other authorization. Therefore, projects that affect the plants on State- and county-owned lands do not have Federal oversight, such as complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
Florida Statutes 581.185 sections (3)(a) and (3)(b) prohibit any person from willfully destroying or harvesting any species listed as endangered or threatened on the Index, or growing such a plant on the private land of another, or on any public land, without first obtaining the written permission of the landowner and a permit from the Florida Department of Plant Industry. The statute further provides that any person willfully destroying or harvesting; transporting, carrying, or conveying on any public road or highway; or selling or offering for sale any plant listed in the Index as endangered must have a permit from the State at all times when engaged in any such activities. Further, Florida Statutes 581.185 section (10) provides for consultation similar to section 7 of the Act for listed species, by requiring the Department of Transportation to notify the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the Endangered Plant Advisory Council of planned highway construction at the time bids are first advertised, to facilitate evaluation of the project for listed plant populations, and to provide “for the appropriate disposal of such plants” (
However, this statute provides no substantive protection of habitat or protection of potentially suitable habitat at this time. Florida Statutes 581.185 section (8) waives State regulation for certain classes of activities for all species on the Index, including the clearing or removal of regulated plants for agricultural, forestry, mining, construction (residential, commercial, or infrastructure), and fire-control activities by a private landowner or his or her agent.
In 1984, section 24-49 of the Code of Miami-Dade County established regulation of County-designated NFCs. These regulations were placed on specific properties throughout the County by an act of the Board of County Commissioners in an effort to protect environmentally sensitive forest lands. The Miami-Dade County RER has regulatory authority over these County-designated NFCs and is charged with enforcing regulations that provide partial protection of remaining upland forested areas designated as NFC on the Miami Rock Ridge. NFC regulations are designed to prevent clearing or destruction of native vegetation within preserved areas. Miami-Dade County Code typically allows up to 20 percent of pine rocklands designated as NFC to be developed, and requires that the remaining 80 percent be placed under a perpetual covenant. The code requires that no more than 10 percent of a rockland hammock designated as NFC may be developed for properties greater than 5 acres and that the remaining 90 percent be placed under a perpetual covenant for preservation purposes (Joyner 2013a, 2014, pers. comm.; Lima 2014, pers. comm.). However, for properties less than 5 acres, up to one-half an acre may be cleared if the request is deemed a reasonable use of property; this allowance often may be greater than 20 percent (for pine rocklands) or 10 percent (for rockland hammock) of the property (Lima 2014, pers. comm.). NFC landowners are also required to obtain an NFC permit for any work, including removal of nonnatives within the boundaries of the NFC on their property. When RER discovers unpermitted work, it takes appropriate enforcement action and seeks restoration when possible. The NFC program is responsible for ensuring that NFC permits are issued in accordance with the limitations and requirements of the county code and that appropriate NFC preserves are established and maintained in conjunction with the issuance of an NFC permit when development occurs. The NFC program currently regulates approximately 600 pine rocklands or pine rocklands/hammock properties, comprising approximately 1,200 ha (3,000 ac) of habitat (Joyner 2013, pers. comm.).
Although the NFC program is designed to protect rare and important upland (non-wetlands) habitats in south Florida, the strategy has limitations. For example, in certain circumstances where landowners can demonstrate that limiting development to 20 percent (for pine rocklands) or 10 percent (for rockland hammock) does not allow for “reasonable use” of the property, additional development may be approved. Furthermore, Miami-Dade County Code provides for up to 100 percent of the NFC to be developed in limited circumstances for parcels less than 2.02 ha (5 ac) in size and only requires coordination with landowners if they plan to develop property or perform work within the NFC-designated area. Therefore, many of the existing private forested NFC parcels remain fragmented, without management obligations or preserve designation, as development has not been proposed at a level that would trigger the NFC regulatory requirements. Often, nonnative vegetation over time begins to dominate and degrade the undeveloped and unmanaged NFC landscape until it no longer meets the legal threshold of an NFC, which applies only to land dominated by native vegetation. When development of such degraded NFCs is proposed, Miami-Dade County Code requires delisting of the degraded areas as part of the development process. Property previously designated as NFC is removed from the list even before development is initiated because of the abundance of nonnative species, making it no longer considered to be jurisdictional or subject to the NFC protection requirements of Miami-Dade County Code (Grossenbacher 2013, pers. comm.).
Currently,
Although many populations of the four plants are afforded some level of protection because they are on public conservation lands, existing regulatory mechanisms have not led to a reduction or removal of threats posed to these plants by a wide array of sources (see discussions under Factor A, above, and Factor E, below).
Other natural or manmade factors affect
Nonnative, invasive plants compete with native plants for space, light, water, and nutrients, and make habitat conditions unsuitable for
Nonnative plants have significantly affected pine rocklands, and threaten all occurrences of these four species to some degree (Bradley 2006, pp. 25-26; Bradley and Gann 1999, pp. 18-19; Bradley and Saha 2009, p. 25; Bradley and van der Heiden 2013, pp. 12-16). As a result of human activities, at least 277 taxa of nonnative plants have invaded pine rocklands throughout south Florida (Service 1999, p. 3-175).
At least 162 nonnative plant species are known to invade rockland hammocks; impacts are particularly severe on the Miami Rock Ridge (Service 1999, pp. 3-135). Nonnative plant species have significantly affected rockland hammocks where
Management of nonnative, invasive plants in pine rocklands and rockland hammocks in Miami-Dade County is further complicated because the vast majority of pine rocklands and rockland hammocks are small, fragmented areas bordered by urban development. In the Florida Keys, larger fragments are interspersed with development. Developed or unmanaged areas that contain nonnative species can act as a seed source for nonnatives, allowing them to continue to invade managed pine rocklands or rockland hammocks (Bradley and Gann 1999, p. 13).
Nonnative plant species are also a concern on private lands, where often these species are not controlled due to associated costs, lack of interest, or lack of knowledge of detrimental impacts to the ecosystem. Undiscovered populations of the four plants on private lands could certainly be at risk. Overall, active management is necessary to control for nonnative species and to protect unique and rare habitats where the four plants occur (Snyder
All four plants occur in disturbed areas such as roadsides and areas that formerly were pine rocklands.
While no studies have investigated the effect of mowing on the four plants, research has been conducted on the federally endangered
Herbicide applications, the installation of sod, and dumping may affect populations of the four plants that occur on roadsides, canals banks, and other disturbed sites. Signs of herbicide application were noted at the site of the Big Torch Key roadside population of
All populations of the four plants that occur on disturbed sites are vulnerable to regular maintenance activities such as mowing and herbicide applications, and dumping. This includes portions of all populations of
Another potential anthropogenic threat to the four plants is current application of insecticides throughout these plants' ranges to control mosquito populations. Currently, an aerial insecticide (1,2-dibromo-2,2-dichloroethyl dimethyl phosphate) and ground insecticide (Permethrin) are applied during the May through November timeframe in many parts of south Florida. Nontarget effects of mosquito control may include the loss of pollinating insects upon which certain plants depend.
Koptur and Liu (2003, p. 1184) reported a decrease in
Pesticide spraying practices by the Monroe County Mosquito Control District within NKDR have changed to reduce pesticide use and limit insecticide drift into pine rocklands habitat as a result of agreements between the Service and Florida Keys Mosquito Control District (FKMCD) after critical habitat was designated in 2014 for the Florida leafwing (
Since 2003, expanded larvicide treatments to surrounding islands have significantly reduced adulticide use on Big Pine Key, No Name Key, and the Torch Keys. In addition, the number of aerially applied Naled treatments allowed on NKDR has been limited since 2008 (Florida Key Mosquito Control District 2012, pp. 10-11). Designated “No spray zones” that include the core habitat used by pine rockland butterflies and several linear miles of pine rocklands habitat within the Refuge-neighborhood interface are now excluded from truck spray applications (Anderson 2012, pers. comm.; Service 2012, p. 32). These exclusions and buffer zones encompass over 95 percent of extant croton distribution on Big Pine Key, and include the majority of known recent and historical Florida leafwing population centers on the island (Salvato 2012, pers. comm.). The area largely coincides with the range of these four plants in the lower Florida Keys
In summary, critical habitat regulations for Bartram's scrub-hairstreak butterfly and Florida leafwing have extended benefits to populations of these four plants and their pollinator guild by limiting mosquito insecticide activity in pine rocklands habitat in the Florida Keys. Nevertheless, we are proceeding cautiously and have initiated a multi-year research project to further investigate the level of impact pesticides have on these four plants and their pollinators throughout their ranges.
Endemic species whose populations exhibit a high degree of isolation and narrow geographic distribution, such as
The climate of south Florida is driven by a combination of local, regional, and global weather events and oscillations. There are three main “seasons”: (1) The wet season, which is hot, rainy, and humid from June through October; (2) the official hurricane season that extends one month beyond the wet season (June 1 through November 30), with peak season being August and September; and (3) the dry season, which is drier and cooler, from November through May. In the dry season, periodic surges of cool and dry continental air masses influence the weather with short-duration rain events followed by long periods of dry weather.
Florida is considered the most vulnerable State in the United States to hurricanes and tropical storms (Florida Climate Center,
Hurricanes, storm surge, and extreme high tide events are natural events that can pose a threat to the four plants. Hurricanes and tropical storms can modify habitat (
The Florida Keys were impacted by three hurricanes in 2005: Katrina on August 26, Rita on September 20, and Wilma on October 24. Hurricane Wilma had the largest impact, with storm surges flooding much of the landmass of the Keys. In some places, this water impounded and sat for days. The vegetation in many areas was top-killed due to salt water inundation (Hodges and Bradley 2006, p. 9). Flooding kills plants that do not have adaptations to tolerate anoxic soil conditions that persist after flooding; the flooding and resulting high salinities might also impact soil seed banks of the four plants (Bradley and Saha 2009, pp. 27-28). After hurricane Wilma, the herb layer in pine rocklands in close proximity to the coast was brown with few plants having live material above ground (Bradley 2006, p. 11). Subsequent surveys found no
Some climate change models predict increased frequency and duration of severe storms, including hurricanes and tropical storms (McLaughlin
All populations of the four plants are vulnerable to hurricane wind damage. Populations close to the coast and all populations of the four plants in the Florida Keys are vulnerable to inundation by storm surge. Historically, the four plant species may have benefitted from more abundant and contiguous habitat to buffer them from storm events. The small size of many populations of these plants makes them especially vulnerable, in which the loss of even a few individuals could reduce the viability of a single population. The destruction and modification of native habitat, combined with small population size, has likely contributed over time to the stress, decline, and, in some instances, extirpation of populations or local occurrences due to stochastic events.
Due to the small size of some existing populations of
Endemic species whose populations exhibit a high degree of isolation are extremely susceptible to extinction from both random and nonrandom catastrophic natural or human-caused events. Species that are restricted to geographically limited areas are inherently more vulnerable to extinction than widespread species because of the increased risk of genetic bottlenecks, random demographic fluctuations, climate change, and localized catastrophes such as hurricanes and disease outbreaks (Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 607; Pimm
Climatic changes, including sea level rise (SLR), are occurring in the State of Florida and are impacting associated plants, animals, and habitats. Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The term “climate,” as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), refers to the mean and variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2013, p. 1450). The term “climate change” thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (
Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that changes in climate are occurring, and that the rate of change has been faster since the 1950s. Examples include warming of the global climate system, and substantial increases in precipitation in some regions of the world and decreases in other regions. (For these and other examples, see IPCC 2007a, p. 30; Solomon
Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in temperature and other climate conditions (
Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables (
As is the case with all stressors that we assess, even if we conclude that a species is currently affected or is likely to be affected in a negative way by one or more climate-related impacts, it does not necessarily follow that the species meets the definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” under the Act. If a species is listed as endangered or threatened, knowledge regarding the vulnerability of the species to, and known or anticipated impacts from, climate-associated changes in environmental conditions can be used to help devise appropriate strategies for its recovery.
Global climate projections are informative, and, in some cases, the only or the best scientific information available for us to use. However, projected changes in climate and related
With regard to our analysis for
We acknowledge that the drivers of SLR (especially contributions of melting glaciers) are not completely understood, and there is uncertainty with regard to the rate and amount of SLR. This uncertainty increases as projections are made further into the future. For this reason, we examine threats to the species within the range of projections found in recent climate change literature.
The long-term record at Key West shows that sea level rose on average 0.229 cm (0.090 in) annually between 1913 and 2013 (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2013, p. 1). This equates to approximately 22.9 cm (9.02 in) over the last 100 years. IPCC (2008, p. 28) emphasized it is very likely that the average rate of SLR during the 21st century will exceed the historical rate. The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (2000, entire) presented a range of scenarios based on the computed amount of change in the climate system due to various potential amounts of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols in 2100. Each scenario describes a future world with varying levels of atmospheric pollution leading to corresponding levels of global warming and corresponding levels of SLR. The IPCC Synthesis Report (2007, entire) provided an integrated view of climate change and presented updated projections of future climate change and related impacts under different scenarios.
Subsequent to the 2007 IPCC Report, the scientific community has continued to model SLR. Recent peer-reviewed publications indicate a movement toward increased acceleration of SLR. Observed SLR rates are already trending along the higher end of the 2007 IPCC estimates, and it is now widely held that SLR will exceed the levels projected by the IPCC (Rahmstorf
Other processes expected to be affected by projected warming include temperatures, rainfall (amount, seasonal timing, and distribution), and storms (frequency and intensity) (see “Environmental Stochasticity”, above). Models where sea surface temperatures are increasing also show a higher probability of more intense storms (Maschinski
SLR projections from various scenarios have been downscaled by TNC (2011, entire) and Zhang
Prior to inundations from SLR, there will likely be habitat transitions related to climate change, including changes to hydrology and increasing vulnerability to storm surge. Hydrology has a strong influence on plant distribution in coastal areas (IPCC 2008, p. 57). Such communities typically grade from salt to brackish to freshwater species. From the 1930s to 1950s, increased salinity contributed to the decline of cabbage palm forests in southwest Florida (Williams
Impacts from climate change including regional SLR have been studied for coastal hammocks but not rockland hammock habitat. Saha (
Habitats for these species are restricted to relatively immobile geologic features separated by large expanses of flooded, inhospitable wetland or ocean, leading us to conclude that these habitats will likely not be able to migrate as sea level rises (Saha
Saha (
Direct losses to extant populations of all four plants are expected due to habitat loss and modification from SLR by 2100. We analyzed existing sites that support populations of the four plants using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Sea Level Rise and Coastal Impacts viewer. Below, we discuss general implications of sea level rise within the range of projections discussed above on the current distribution of these species. The NOAA tool uses 1-foot increments, so the analysis is based on 0.91 m (3 ft) and 1.8 m (6 ft).
In the Florida Keys, a 0.91-m (3-ft) rise would inundate most areas of Big Pine Key and Lower Sugarloaf Key, and all of the areas on Upper Sugarloaf Key and Big Torch Key, that support
In the Florida Keys, a 0.91-m (3-ft) rise would reduce the area of islands in the upper Keys, but extant populations on Key Largo, Windley Key, and Lignumvitae Key are less vulnerable than the Middle and Lower Keys, which are at lower elevations. Lower Matecumbe Key, Plantation Key, Vaca Key, Big Pine Key, and Big Munson Island would be fragmented and reduced to numerous much smaller islands. The remaining uplands on these small islands would likely transition to buttonwoods and saltmarshes, and would be extremely vulnerable further losses to storm surge. This would further reduce and fragment the populations. A 1.8-m (6-ft) rise would completely inundate all areas that support
NPS, the Service, Miami-Dade County, and the State of Florida have ongoing nonnative plant management programs to reduce threats on public lands, as funding and resources allow. In Miami-Dade County, nonnative, invasive plant management is very active, with a goal to treat all publicly owned properties at least once a year and more often in many cases. IRC and FTBG conduct research and monitoring in various natural areas within Miami-Dade County and the Florida Keys for various endangered plant species and nonnative, invasive species.
We have analyzed threats from other natural or manmade factors including: Nonnative, invasive plants; management practices used on roadsides and disturbed sites (such as mowing, sodding, and herbicide use); pesticide spraying and its effects on pollinators; environmental stochasticity; effects from small population size and isolation; and the effects of climate change, including SLR. The related risks from hurricanes and storm surge act together to impact populations of all four plants. Some of these threats (
When two or more threats affect populations of the four plants, the effects of those threats could interact or become compounded, producing a cumulative adverse effect that is greater than the impact of either threat alone. The most obvious cases in which cumulative adverse effects would be significant are those in which small populations (Factor E) are affected by threats that result in destruction or modification of habitat (Factor A). The limited distributions and small population sizes of many populations of the four plants make them extremely susceptible to the detrimental effects of further habitat modification, degradation, and loss, as well as other anthropogenic threats. Mechanisms leading to the decline of the four plants, as discussed above, range from local (
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future threats to
The Act defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” As described in detail above,
Throughout its range,
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The threats to the survival of
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we list
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for downlisting or delisting, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. If these four plant species are listed, a recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web site (
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is listed as an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require consultation as described in the preceding paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the Service, NPS, and Department of Defense; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
With respect to endangered plants, prohibitions outlined at 50 CFR 17.61 make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or to remove and reduce to possession any such plant species from areas under Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for endangered plants, the Act prohibits malicious damage or destruction of any such species on any area under Federal jurisdiction, and the removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying of any such species on any other area in knowing violation of any State law or regulation, or in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law. Exceptions to these prohibitions are outlined at 50 CFR 17.62. With respect to threatened plants, 50 CFR 17.71 provides that, with certain exceptions, all of the prohibitions outlined at 50 CFR 17.61 for endangered plants also apply to threatened plants. Permit exceptions to the prohibitions for threatened plants are outlined at 50 CFR 17.72.
Preservation of native flora of Florida through Florida Statutes 581.185, sections (3)(a) and (3)(b), provide limited protection to species listed in the State of Florida Regulated Plant Index including
The Service acknowledges that it cannot fully address some of the natural threats facing
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered or threatened plants under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits for endangered plants are codified at 50 CFR 17.62, and for threatened plants at 50 CFR 17.72. With regard to endangered plants, the Service may issue a permit authorizing any activity otherwise prohibited by 50 CFR 17.61 for scientific purposes or for enhancing the propagation or survival of endangered plants.
It is our policy, as published in the
(1) Import any such species into, or export any of the four plant species from, the United States.
(2) Remove and reduce to possession any of the four plant species from areas under Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damage or destroy any of the four plant species on any such area; or remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy any of the four plant species on any other area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any State or in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law.
(3) Deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial activity, any of the four plant species.
(4) Sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any of the four plant species.
(5) Introduce any nonnative wildlife or plant species to the State of Florida that compete with or prey upon
(6) Release any unauthorized biological control agents that attack any life stage of
(7) Manipulate or modify, without authorization, the habitat of
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Field Supervisor of the Service's South Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see
When
Activities that the Service believes could potentially harm these four plants include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly alter the hydrology or substrate, such as ditching or filling. Such activities may include, but are not limited to, road construction or maintenance, and residential, commercial, or recreational development.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter vegetation structure or composition, such as clearing vegetation for construction of residences, facilities, trails, and roads.
(3) Actions that would introduce nonnative species that would significantly alter vegetation structure or composition. Such activities may include, but are not limited to, residential and commercial development, and road construction.
(4) Application of herbicides, or release of contaminants, in areas where these plants occur. Such activities may include, but are not limited to, natural resource management, management of rights-of-way, residential and commercial development, and road construction.
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed upon a determination by the Secretary of the Interior that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Section 3(3) of the Act defines conservation as to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary will designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist:
(1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or
(2) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
In our proposed listing rule, we determined that because the designation of critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of threat to the species and may provide some measure of benefit, the designation of critical habitat is prudent for
Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) further state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exists: (1) Information sufficient to perform required analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking; or (2) the biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat. On the basis of a review of available information, we find that critical habitat for
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act need not be prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the South Florida Ecological Services Field Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; approval of quota transfer.
NMFS announces its approval of a transfer of a portion of the 2016 commercial bluefish quota from the State of North Carolina to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This approval of the transfer complies with the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan quota transfer provision. This announcement also informs the public of the revised commercial quotas for North Carolina and Massachusetts.
Effective September 28, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
Reid Lichwell, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9112.
Regulations governing the Atlantic bluefish fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.160 through 648.167. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through Florida. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state are described in § 648.162.
The final rule implementing Amendment 1 to the Bluefish Fishery Management Plan published in the
North Carolina and Massachusetts have requested the transfer of 75,000 lb (34,019 kg) of bluefish commercial quota from North Carolina to Massachusetts. Both states have certified that the transfer meets all pertinent state requirements. This quota transfer was requested by Massachusetts to ensure that its 2016 quota would not be exceeded. The Regional Administrator has approved this quota transfer based on his determination that the criteria set forth in § 648.162(e)(1)(i) through (iii) have been met. The revised bluefish quotas for calendar year 2016 are: North Carolina, 1,391,100 lb (630,992 kg); and Massachusetts, 553,096 lb (250,880 kg). These quota adjustments revise the quotas specified in the final rule implementing the 2016-2018 Atlantic Bluefish Specifications published on August 4, 2016 (81 FR 51370), and reflect all subsequent commercial bluefish quota transfers completed to date. For information of previous transfers for fishing year 2016 visit:
This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is proposing changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) issuance regulations in accordance with the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law 110-234 (“the 2008 Farm Bill”). The proposal would implement several provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill to: Clarify that monthly SNAP benefits must be issued in one lump sum; require SNAP accounts to be inactive for a minimum of 6 months before taking benefits off-line; require benefits taken off-line to be restored within 48 hours of the recipient's request; and require permanent expungement of unused benefits after 12 months of account inactivity. This proposal also addresses the requirement to notify households when benefits are taken off-line. Finally, FNS is updating SNAP definitions in 7 CFR part 271, to reflect the Program's new name and the issuance of benefits through Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) systems.
Written comments must be received on or before November 28, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
The Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
This proposed rule would codify and clarify certain technical, operational aspects to States related to benefit issuance. It also requests comment about proposed interpretation of taking benefits off line and expunging benefits. All comments submitted in response to this proposed rule will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the substance of the comments and the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be subject to public disclosure. FNS will make the comments publicly available on the Internet via
Vicky Robinson, Chief, Retailer Management and Issuance Branch, Retailer Policy and Management, Rm. 418, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, or by phone at 703-305-2476.
Sections 4113 (Clarification of Split Issuance) and 4114 (Accrual of Benefits) of the 2008 Farm Bill amended section 7 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2016) (“the Food and Nutrition Act”), which pertains to SNAP benefit issuance. In addition, section 4001 updated the language in the Food and Nutrition Act to reflect the Program's name change from the Food Stamp Program to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and section 4115 de-obligated coupons as of June 18, 2009, and made EBT cards the sole method of benefit delivery.
This rulemaking proposes to implement the 2008 Farm Bill amendments to the Food and Nutrition Act, and to update the general information and definitions of 7 CFR part 271 to reflect the Program's new name and issuance of benefits through EBT systems. The elimination of all other benefit delivery options was addressed in the “Regulation Restructuring: Issuance Regulation Update and Reorganization to Reflect the End of Coupon Issuance Systems” rule published in final at 75 FR 18377 on April 12, 2010, which became effective on June 11, 2010. The 2008 Farm Bill provisions addressed in this Proposed Rule were implemented through FNS implementing memo on October 1, 2008.
FNS is proposing to add new definitions associated with the current EBT issuance system and to update the terminology in 7 CFR part 271, to reflect the program's new name and the elimination of coupons. Furthermore, FNS proposes to change the definition of “Drug addiction or alcoholic treatment and rehabilitation program” to be consistent with current policy, which does not require programs to be eligible to receive funding under Part B of title XIX of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x
The general provisions proposed in part 274 are statutorily required by the Food and Nutrition Act. These provisions were administratively implemented on October 1, 2008, via an FNS implementation memo, but would be codified with this proposed rule. The discussion below and the subsequent regulatory language for this part provide additional details to address operational processes and/or clarify current policy. Where FNS is also proposing changes to current processes, it is so noted.
Prior to the 2008 Farm Bill, some State agencies had received strong interest from stakeholders to divide each individual household's monthly allotment into two or more issuances over the month. Up to that point, no State had ever split households' benefit allotments. While not explicitly
The purpose of splitting benefit allotments, according to retail industry proponents, would be to help authorized SNAP stores better manage their food stock, employee hours and traffic flow. Proponents have also suggested that it would ensure that SNAP participants spread their benefit spending over the course of the month instead of depleting the entire allotment early on and not having sufficient funds to meet their nutritional needs as the end of the month approaches. However, section 4113 of the 2008 Farm Bill now requires that State agencies issue a household's ongoing monthly benefit allotment in one lump sum. Proponents of the one issuance per month limitation have argued that requiring the entire monthly benefit allotment to be issued at one time allows households to make large buying trips and to purchase large, economy-size containers of staple foods. It also allows households with small benefit amounts—such as seniors or those with limited transportation options—to make one shopping trip during the month.
To address retailer concerns regarding monthly spikes in traffic flow, State agencies have the option to stagger the issuance of benefits to individual households over multiple days of the month in accordance with 7 CFR 274.2(d)(1). Staggered issuance, in this context, means issuing benefits to a group of SNAP recipients on one date of a month, and issuing benefits to another group of recipients on a different date of the month, and so on, so that all SNAP recipients in the State are not receiving their monthly allotment and shopping on the same day. Staggered issuance allows authorized SNAP stores to manage better their food stock, employee hours and traffic flow, while still allowing recipients to make bulk purchases and/or limit their shopping trips to once per month. When a State agency changes its issuance schedule to institute or expand a staggered issuance schedule, State agencies would continue to have the option to divide the issuances into two parts during the transition month to meet the requirement that no more than 40 days elapses between the issuance of any two allotments provided to a household participating longer than two consecutive, complete months. In general, the prohibition against splitting ongoing monthly issuances is not intended to change policy or practice with respect to the issuance of benefits in any other area, including expedited benefits, the proration of benefits for partial months, the issuance of supplemental benefits in the event a benefit correction is necessary, or the option to issue benefits semimonthly to residents of drug or alcohol addiction treatment facilities.
This provision would be codified at 7 CFR 274.2(c).
Under the previous food stamp coupon issuance system, paper coupons did not have an expiration date. Households could accumulate an unlimited amount of benefits in the form of paper coupons and spend them at any time in the future, until the 2008 Farm Bill de-obligated all food stamp coupons as of June 2009. Currently under EBT, consistent with section 4115 of the 2008 Farm Bill, benefits are expunged (permanently removed) from inactive accounts if the account has been inactive for one year. Current policy considers an account active if the household initiates an action that affects the balance of the account, such as a purchase or refund, at least once every 12 months. As long as the account is active, States are not allowed to expunge any benefits even if there are benefits in the account that were issued more than 12 months ago. Only when the account has been inactive for 12 months, may State agencies begin to permanently remove benefits from a household's account at the benefit allotment level. This policy and approach to expungement was in place through regulations prior to the 2008 Farm Bill.
The 2008 Farm Bill requires State agencies to establish a procedure for recovering electronic benefits from a household's account due to inactivity and to expunge benefits that have not been accessed by a household after a period of 12 months. Because expungement has been a regulatory requirement since the beginning of EBT implementation, all State agencies already have a process in place for expunging benefits from a household's EBT account due to inactivity. Furthermore, the 2008 Farm Bill implementation memo issued on July 3, 2008, maintained the current expungement process outlined in the previous paragraph. However, after further review of the statutory language, FNS has determined that there is sufficient ambiguity in the language to allow for two different interpretations.
Section 7(h)(12)(C) of the Food and Nutrition Act reads, “A State agency shall expunge benefits that have not been accessed by a household after a period of 12 months.” This language could be interpreted to support SNAP's current expungement policy (interpretation #1) of only expunging benefits from EBT
Since the 2008 Farm Bill passed, FNS has received feedback from some States in support of the second interpretation. This support emphasizes that SNAP households should be prevented from accumulating excessively high balances in their SNAP EBT accounts. High balances, some States have indicated, do not align with the true intent of the program, and hold taxpayer money inactive that could otherwise be spent in a beneficial way. As a result, FNS is requesting comments through this proposed rulemaking to obtain further feedback from State agencies as well as other stakeholders, such as advocates and EBT processors, regarding the possibility of changing the current expungement process to reflect a process in line with interpretation #2.
Under interpretation #2, FNS is particularly interested in receiving comments on how to address a scenario in which a household receives restored benefits for multiple months in one lump sum as a result of a fair hearing finding. This is one possible reason a household might have a large SNAP balance. FNS understands that, in these types of situations, a household would have a shorter period of time overall to spend the restored benefits they were entitled to receive for previous months than would have been the case if the benefits were provided monthly as originally required. The restored benefits would be in addition to any ongoing benefits the household is receiving, which must also be spent within 12 months. However, FNS is also sensitive to the automated system processes that would be impacted if it instituted exceptions to a requirement that State agencies expunge unused benefits 12 months after they were issued.
In addition to comments on each of the two expungement policy interpretations, FNS is also interested in receiving comments on whether every State agency should be given the option to choose one of the two expungement processes discussed here. Therefore, both expungement processes (
Respondents who support the second alternative (
To summarize: Under interpretation #1, SNAP benefits would only be expunged if the account has been inactive for 12 months. As long as the account is active, no benefits would be expunged regardless of when the benefits were issued, and benefits could continue to accumulate as long as the household remains eligible for benefits. Under interpretation #2, households would have 12 months from the date of issuance to spend each benefit allotment they receive even if the household is accessing the account and using benefits.
In this proposed rule, the proposed regulatory language is in line with the 2008 Farm Bill Implementation Memo, which mirrored current policy of expunging benefits only from inactive EBT accounts. Final language will take into consideration the comments received regarding both possible expungement interpretations discussed above.
This rulemaking also proposes to codify the current policy of requiring State agencies to expunge benefits at the benefit allotment level. In other words, the entire balance of a SNAP EBT account could not be permanently removed due to inactivity if there are benefit allotments that have not been available to the household for at least 12 months. Instead, the State would need to wait 12 months from the date when each benefit allotment was issued to the household or from the last date of account activity, whichever date is later, before expunging those particular funds.
Furthermore, to ensure that benefits are not available to the household longer than allowed by statute, FNS is proposing to require State agencies to expunge benefits from the EBT system or, if offline, from the State records on a daily basis.
This proposed rule also clarifies that the expungement timeframe requirement would not apply to cases that have been closed due to the death of all household members. In most cases, this provision would apply to one-person households. Once the State agency has confirmed a death match and closed the case in accordance with 7 CFR 272.14, there is no one left in the household who is entitled to the benefits. In such cases, State agencies would be required to permanently expunge all SNAP benefits in the household's account regardless of when the benefits were issued or last used. This provision would prevent unauthorized persons from accessing and using benefits that remain in a deceased household's account. For all other SNAP cases, benefits would continue to remain in the SNAP account even after the SNAP case is closed (unless taken off-line due to inactivity as discussed below) until the benefits have aged off in accordance with expungement requirements.
This provision would be codified at 7 CFR 274.2(h)(2).
Prior to the 2008 Farm Bill, EBT regulations allowed State agencies to move all benefits in an inactive SNAP account off-line if the account had not been accessed over a three-month period. Once benefits are taken off-line, they are no longer immediately accessible to the household, but must be reinstated if the household reapplies for the program or requests that the remaining benefits be moved back on-line prior to expungement. However, some households, especially seniors who qualify for a small amount of benefits, have been known to save up those smaller amounts and use several months' worth in one shopping trip. For these households, three months may have been too short a period before moving benefits off-line. As a result, section 4114 of the 2008 Farm Bill stipulated 6 months as the time period that an EBT account must be inactive before a State agency may move benefits off-line. State agencies are not required to take inactive benefits off-line at all prior to expungement, but if a State agency wishes to exercise the option to do so, it must wait until an EBT account has been inactive for at least 6 months. In accordance with the July 3, 2008, implementing memo, this provision was implemented on October 1, 2008.
Because “off-line” was not previously defined in regulations, FNS is taking this opportunity to propose such a definition. The off-line definition would not impact a client's ability to get benefits reinstated, or the timeframes. The definition serves only to provide State agencies and EBT processors the parameters for operationalizing the off-line provision. FNS welcomes comments regarding the impact this definition would have on State agencies' EBT issuance systems.
Going forward, taking benefits “off-line” would mean that the benefits are being removed from the EBT account and the EBT system. Moreover, this regulation proposes that, when taking benefits off-line, from a financial management perspective, the EBT contractor treat these benefits like expungements by removing benefits from the Account Management Agent (AMA). The AMA is an accounting system that interfaces with the U.S. Department of Treasury to keep track of benefit authorizations, returned benefits such as expungements, and benefit redemptions. However, unlike a permanent expungement, information about the benefits (amount, availability date, last used date, etc.) would be stored elsewhere so that the benefits can be reissued upon timely contact by the household.
The law does not allow State agencies to make SNAP benefits in an inactive EBT account inaccessible to a client prior to expungement, unless they exercise the option to store benefits off-line within the permitted timeframes. Therefore, under the proposed definition of “off-line”, State agencies would no longer be able to flag an account as “dormant” or otherwise deactivate the account to make benefits inaccessible to the client, and yet keep the benefits on-line. FNS is proposing this limitation because such a practice would defeat the logic of the original regulation that permitted benefits to be moved off-line. When the original regulation to allow State agencies to take benefits off-line was implemented, the increased computer system capacity needed to maintain all EBT accounts on-line was more expensive than it is now. By taking inactive EBT accounts off-line, the goal was to reduce the overall cost of EBT services. The incremental cost of additional system capacity, however, is now considerably less expensive. Therefore, the financial motives for moving benefits off-line are no longer a significant factor. Nevertheless, some State agencies are choosing to make benefits inaccessible
Section 4114 of the 2008 Farm Bill also requires State agencies to send a notice to the household when the household's benefits are taken off-line and to make the benefits available again within 48 hours of the household's request. The Congressional intent, as stipulated in the Congressional record, was that notification be closely tied to the date benefits would move off-line. Therefore, this rule proposes in 273.2(h)(1) to allow States to choose when to provide notification as long as it is within 10 days prior to or concurrent with moving benefits off-line. Although not required, some State agencies may want to give clients sufficient notice to access the account to prevent benefits from being taken off-line altogether. Because individual off-line notification is now a statutory requirement, State agencies may no longer receive a waiver to provide general off-line notification as part of initial training or recertification. Inactive accounts with a zero balance that are taken off-line do not require a notice because no actual benefits are made inaccessible to the household.
As already required at 7 CFR 274.2(h)(1), the notice must describe the steps necessary to bring the recovered benefits back on-line. State agencies should make the process for reinstating off-line benefits simple for households. A general request for assistance from a household that has had benefits moved off-line should be considered a request for reinstatement of benefits. In other words, households should not have to follow a complicated reinstatement option in order to get benefits restored to their accounts. Rather, eligibility workers and local office or call center employees should assist households in initiating the process for reinstating benefits. Once the benefits are reinstated, the benefit aging process must start over so that the household has another six months to access the account before the reinstated benefits are taken off-line again, and another 12 months to access the account before those benefits are expunged due to inactivity.
This provision would be codified at 7 CFR 274.2(h)(1).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule has been designated as not significant by the Office of Management and Budget, therefore, no Regulatory Impact Analysis is required.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires Agencies to analyze the impact of rulemaking on small entities and consider alternatives that would minimize any significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to that review, this rule is certified not to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Department generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost/benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures to State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Department to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This proposed rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) that impose costs on State, local, or tribal governments or to the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. This proposed rule is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
SNAP is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.551. For the reasons set forth in 2 CFR chapter IV, this Program is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with state and local officials.
Executive Order 13132, requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments. Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories called for under section (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132. FNS has considered the impact of this proposed rule on State and local governments and has determined that this rulemaking does not have federalism implications. This proposed rule does not impose substantial or direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, under section 6(b) of the Executive Order, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is intended to have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full implementation. This proposed rule is not intended to have retroactive effect unless specified in the
Executive Order 13175, requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. In late 2010 and early 2011, USDA engaged in a series of consultative sessions to obtain input by tribal officials or their designees concerning the impact of this rulemaking on the tribe or Indian tribal governments, or whether this rulemaking may preempt tribal law. USDA did not receive any comments specific to this proposed rule during the sessions. Reports from the consultative sessions were made part of the USDA annual reporting on Tribal Consultation and Collaboration. USDA offers consultation opportunities, such as webinars and teleconferences, for collaborative conversations with tribal leaders and their representatives concerning ways to improve rules with regard to their effect on Indian country on a quarterly basis as part of its yearly tribal consultation schedule.
We are unaware of any current tribal laws that could be in conflict with the proposed rule. We request that commenters address any concerns in this regard in their responses.
FNS has reviewed this rule in accordance with Departmental Regulations 4300-4, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis,” and 1512-1, “Regulatory Decision Making Requirements.” After a careful review of the rule's intent and provisions, FNS has determined that this proposed rule will not in any way limit or reduce the ability of protected classes of individuals to receive SNAP benefits on the basis of their race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, religion or political belief nor will it have a differential impact on minority owned or operated business establishments, and woman owned or operated business establishments that participate in SNAP.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chap. 35; see 5 CFR 1320) requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve all collections of information by a Federal agency before they can be implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. This proposed rule does not contain information collection requirements subject to approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Food and Nutrition Service is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Food stamps, Grant programs—social programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For reason set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR parts 271 and 274 are proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2011-2036.
The revision reads as follows:
(a)
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(1) Receiving funding under part B of title XIX of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x
(2) Eligible to receive funding under part B of title XIX even if it does not actually receive funding; or
(3) Operating to further the purposes of part B of title XIX, to provide treatment to drug addicts and or alcoholics.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c)
(2) For those households which are to receive a combined allotment, the State agency shall provide the benefits for both months as an aggregate (combined) allotment, or as two separate allotments, made available at the same time in accordance with the timeframes specified in § 273.2 of this chapter.
(h)
(1)
(i) Off-line benefits are benefits that have been removed from the EBT system for storage by the State agency and are no longer accessible to the household unless and until the benefits are reinstated upon contact by the household.
(ii) The State agency shall send written notification to the household up to 10 days prior to or concurrent with the action to store benefits off-line and
(iii) Benefits stored off-line that have not reached the 12-month timeframe for expungement in accordance with paragraph (h)(2) of this section shall be reinstated and made available within 48 hours of reapplication or contact by the household.
(iv) Off-line benefits shall be removed from the Account Management Agent system, making them unavailable to the household. Upon reinstatement, the benefits shall be reissued and the account shall be reactivated or a new account established to resume the benefit aging process from the new issuance date.
(2)
(i) When the oldest benefit allotment has not been accessed by the household for 12 months, the State agency shall expunge benefits from the EBT account or off-line storage at the monthly benefit allotment level as each benefit allotment ages to 12 months since the date of issuance or since the last date of account activity, whichever date is later.
(ii) Expunged benefits shall be removed from the Account Management Agent unless already removed as provided in paragraph (h)(1) of this section, and shall not be reinstated.
(iii) The State agency shall not expunge any benefits from active accounts even if there are benefit allotments older than 12 months. If at any time after the expungement process begins, the household initiates activity affecting the balance of the account, the State shall stop expunging benefits from the account and start the account aging process over again for the remaining benefits.
(iv) Notwithstanding the paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of this section, in instances when the State agency verifies a death match for all certified members of the household and closes the SNAP case in accordance with § 272.14 of this chapter, the State agency shall expunge the remaining SNAP balance in the household's EBT account at that time.
(i)
(1) Whenever benefits are stored off-line or expunged, the State agency shall document the date, amount of the benefits and storage location in the household case file.
(2) Issuance reports shall reflect the adjustment to the State agency issuance totals to comply with monthly issuance reporting requirements prescribed under § 274.4.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model CN-235, CN 235-100, CN 235-200, and CN 235-300 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracks in certain areas of the rear fuselage. This proposed AD would require repetitive borescope and detailed visual inspections of the rear fuselage lateral beam and its external area and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the rear fuselage lateral beam and its external area; such cracking could lead to failure of the affected components, and result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 14, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus Defence and Space, Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 31 27; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; fax 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued Airworthiness Directive 2016-0064, dated April 04, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes. The MCAI states:
During a scheduled visual inspection accomplished in accordance with the CN-235 Maintenance Review Board (MRB) Document task 53.160, cracking was found, affecting the rear fuselage lateral beam, both left hand (LH) and right hand (RH) sides. The investigation to determine the cause of these cracks is on-going.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the affected components, resulting in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus Defence and Space (D&S) issued Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-53-0002 Revision 1 (hereafter referred to as `the AOT' in this AD) to provide inspection instructions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive inspections [special detailed inspection with a borescope and detailed visual] of the rear fuselage lateral beam and its external area and, depending on findings, [cracks or discrepancies], accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s) [repair].
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We reviewed Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission (AOT), AOT-CN235-53-0002, Revision 1, dated September 17, 2015. This service information describes repetitive borescope and detailed visual inspection requirements for the rear fuselage lateral beam and its external area. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by November 14, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in certain areas of the rear fuselage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the rear fuselage lateral beam and its external area; such cracking could lead to failure of the affected components, and result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within the compliance time specified in Table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD and, thereafter, at intervals not to exceed the values specified in Table 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD, as applicable to airplane model, accomplish the inspections as specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-53-0002, Revision 1, dated September 17, 2015.
(1) A special detailed inspection for cracks and other discrepancies with a borescope of the rear fuselage lateral beam between Frame (FR) 31 and FR45, left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) side.
(2) A detailed visual inspection for cracks and other discrepancies of the external area of the rear fuselage lateral beam, LH and RH side.
If any crack or discrepancy is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, contact and obtain repair instructions from Airbus Defense and Space S.A. in accordance with paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, and within the compliance time indicated in those instructions, accomplish the repair accordingly, including any post-repair maintenance task(s), as applicable.
Accomplishment of a repair on an airplane, as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections as required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane, unless specified in the applicable repair instructions obtained in paragraph (h).
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD, using Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-CN235-53-0002, dated August 28, 2015.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0064, dated April 04, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact EADS-CASA, Military Transport Aircraft Division (MTAD), Integrated Customer Services (ICS), Technical Services, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 55 05; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of the Krueger flap bullnose departing an airplane during taxi, which caused damage to the wing structure and thrust reverser. This proposed AD would require a one-time detailed visual inspection for discrepancies in the Krueger flap bullnose attachment hardware, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct missing Krueger flap bullnose hardware. Such missing hardware could result in the Krueger flap bullnose departing the airplane during flight, which could damage empennage structure and lead to the inability to maintain continued safe flight and landing.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 14, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6450; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We have received a report indicating that the Krueger flap bullnose departed an airplane during taxi, which caused damage to the wing structure and thrust reverser. There have been six other in-service reports of missing bullnose attachment hardware. Those events resulted in a bullnose droop condition but no departure of the part from the airplane. Departure of the Krueger flap bullnose from the airplane during flight could damage empennage structure and lead to the inability to maintain continued safe flight and landing.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1327, dated May 20, 2016. The service information describes procedures for performing a one-time detailed visual inspection for discrepancies in the Krueger flap bullnose attachment hardware and related investigative and corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this proposed AD. Related investigative actions are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.
The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. Corrective actions correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,495 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed 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 available costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by November 14, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1327, dated May 20, 2016.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by reports of the Krueger flap bullnose departing an airplane during taxi, which caused damage to the wing structure and thrust reverser. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct missing Krueger flap bullnose hardware. Such missing hardware could result in the Krueger flap bullnose departing the airplane during flight, which could damage empennage structure and lead to the inability to maintain continued safe flight and landing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection for discrepancies of the Krueger flap bullnose attachment hardware, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1327, dated May 20, 2016. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, 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) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (h)(4)(i) and (h)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or sub-step is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or sub-step. 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
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6450; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This rulemaking proposes to harmonize the FAA's regulations regarding the North Atlantic (NAT) Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications (MNPS) with those of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). ICAO's NAT Region is transitioning from the decades-old MNPS navigation specification to a more modern, Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) specification. This proposed rule would also correct and update the incorporation by reference of ICAO Annex 2 in the FAA's regulations.
Send comments on or before October 31, 2016.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-9154 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Kevin C. Kelley, Flight Technologies Division, Performance Based Flight Systems Branch, AFS-470, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8854; email
The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the U.S. and for the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the world. The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in title 49 United States Code (U.S.C.). Subtitle I, section 106(f), describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII of title 49, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. Section 40101(d)(1) provides that the Administrator shall consider in the public interest, among other matters, assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce. Section 40105(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to exercise his authority consistently with the obligations of the U.S. Government under international agreements.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in title 49, subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, General requirements. Under that section, the FAA is charged broadly with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
This rulemaking is also promulgated pursuant to title 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1) and (2), which charge the FAA with issuing regulations: (1) To ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace; and (2) to govern the flight of aircraft for purposes of navigating, protecting and identifying aircraft, and protecting individuals and property on the ground.
This regulation is within the scope of that authority, because it amends 14 CFR 91.703 to harmonize and incorporate changes made to international standards directly applicable in airspace over the high seas.
The proposed rule would harmonize FAA regulations with ICAO standards relevant to the North Atlantic and to airspace over the high seas. In January 2016, ICAO announced that the NAT Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications (MNPS) airspace would be renamed NAT High Level Airspace (HLA) effective February 4, 2016. ICAO further announced that existing MNPS authorizations by the State of the operator or the State of registry will expire in January 2020. As a result, operators in the NAT HLA would no longer be able to use the MNPS for the navigation of aircraft and would be required to transition to a PBN specification. Airspace over the high seas (oceans, seas, and waters outside of sovereign jurisdiction) is governed by ICAO Annex 2. The FAA's regulatory basis for operational authorizations for the NAT and for all airspace over the high seas is addressed in 14 CFR 91.703, which incorporates Annex 2 by reference, and § 91.705, which provides for NAT MNPS authorizations.
This proposed rule, if adopted, would remove MNPS from part 91 of title 14
Additionally, under this proposal, the FAA is updating the incorporation by reference (IBR) of ICAO Annex 2 in § 91.703, which was last updated in 1997. Since that time, ICAO has published thirteen amendments to Annex 2. This proposal would remove potential ambiguities about the version of Annex 2 applicable to airspace over the high seas.
The proposed rule is an administrative harmonization, as it does not impose any new requirements. If the FAA does not adopt this rule, ICAO's current transition from the MNPS specification to PBN specifications for operations in the NAT HLA, will still take place by 2020. Consequently, there are no costs associated with this proposed rule.
The Chicago Convention was adopted to promote the safe and orderly development of international civil aviation. The Chicago Convention also created ICAO, which promulgates uniform international Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) aimed at standardizing international civil aviation operational practices and services. Currently, these SARPs are detailed in 19 annexes to the Chicago Convention. Annex 2,
In 1977, ICAO established the Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications (MNPS) and the corresponding NAT airspace where MNPS would apply in an effort to address constrained capacity in light of continued growth of NAT traffic. The following year, the required lateral separation was safely halved from 120 to 60 nautical miles due to the enhanced reliability of navigation equipment meeting the MNPS. This resulted in large capacity and efficiency gains.
Since the implementation of the MNPS, the 60 nautical mile lateral separation has remained in place.
In light of those new developments, and in an effort to again safely increase capacity and efficiency, ICAO has allowed for authorizations by the State of the operator or the State of registry using RNAV 10 and RNP 4 specifications. The FAA has published guidance explaining RNP operations in FAA Advisory Circular 90-105A,
As a result of ICAO renaming the NAT MNPS airspace, the references to NAT MNPS in the FAA's regulations are outdated. The FAA proposes to remove all instances of MNPS in 14 CFR part 91. The prescriptive references to navigational specifications are not necessary since operators are required to comply with Annex 2, which aligned RNP and RNAV terminology with the PBN concept in Amendment 41. The FAA issued a revised Operations Specification (OpSpec B039) for the authorization of PBN operations in the NAT HLA on June 10, 2016. Two part 121 carriers are conducting operations in the NAT HLA under revised OpSpec B039 and the FAA expects other carriers and operators to follow suit.
The FAA also proposes to update and correct the incorporation by reference to ICAO Annex 2 in § 91.703 to the current version of the document, as amended through November 10, 2016. Annex 2, including all amendments through Amendment 32, was incorporated by reference into § 91.703 effective April 9, 1997 (62 FR 17480, Apr. 9, 1997). Since then, 13 amendments to Annex 2 have been published (
In accordance with a process described in FAA Order JO 7000.6A,
The FAA notes that the current IBR of Annex 2 does not include the proper language conveying approval of the Director of the Federal Register and proposes to update the IBR of Annex 2 to reflect the Director of the Federal Register's approval as reflected in the proposed regulatory text.
Annex 2 is available through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Document Sales Unit, 999 University Street, Montreal, Quebec H3C 5H7, Canada. Also, you will be able obtain this document on the Internet at
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 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 $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this rule. The reasoning for this determination follows. This rulemaking would harmonize the FAA's regulations regarding the NAT MNPS with those of ICAO. ICAO's NAT Region is transitioning from the decades-old “MNPS” navigation specification to a more modern PBN specification. The FAA also intends to update the incorporation by reference of ICAO Annex 2 in § 91.703. This proposed action, if adopted, would remove all references to MNPS under 14 CFR part 91 and would not impose any new requirements.
Flights in international airspace must follow ICAO standards in that airspace. United States operators have historically complied with provisions relevant to airspace over the high seas in Annex 2. Accordingly, as operators are already complying with ICAO's provisions relevant to operations over the high seas, the FAA believes the proposed rule incorporating the current version of ICAO Annex 2 would impose minimal cost. The FAA requests comments on this determination.
The FAA has, therefore, determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
Even though there are substantial numbers of small entities operating aircraft across international waters, this proposed rule would not impose a significant economic impact. Flights in international airspace must follow ICAO standards in that airspace. Currently, United States operators must comply with Annex 2 when operating over the high seas. This proposed rule harmonizes FAA regulations to be in accord with new ICAO rules effective in airspace over the high seas and imposes no new regulations. Accordingly, no affected entity incurs new costs. Thus the FAA expects this proposed rule would not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA asks for comment on this determination.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this rule and determined that it uses international ICAO standards and the rule complies with the Trade Agreements Act as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 million. This rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there would be no new requirement for information collection associated with this proposed rule.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified differences with the current version of Annex 2 (through Amendment 45). These differences, as prescribed in ICAO Annex 15, have been published in the United States Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP), section GEN 1.7. The differences listed in the AIP for Annex 2 are minor in nature and have no relation to the Annex 2 requirement for aircraft to be operated with navigation equipment appropriate to the route to be flown. This is consistent with the FAA's support of international compatibility and its obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation.
FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6 and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications.
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Executive Order (E.O.) 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policy and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation. The agency has determined that this action would not have a significant international impact, but would remove potential ambiguities about the applicability of ICAO rules over the high seas.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1).
Air carrier, Air taxis, Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).
(b) Annex 2 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Tenth Edition—July 2005, with Amendments through Amendment 45, applicable November 10, 2016 is incorporated by reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the FAA must publish a document in the
(a) * * *
(2) RVSM may be effective in the High Level Airspace (HLA) within the NAT. The HLA airspace within the NAT is defined by the volume of airspace between FL 285 and FL 420 (inclusive) extending between latitude 27 degrees north and the North Pole, bounded in the east by the eastern boundaries of control areas Santa Maria Oceanic, Shanwick Oceanic, and Reykjavik Oceanic and in the west by the western boundaries of control areas Reykjavik Oceanic, Gander Oceanic, and New York Oceanic, excluding the areas west of 60 degrees west and south of 38 degrees 30 minutes north.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, section 104(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), requires the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. These standards must be substantially the same as applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission determines that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with a product. Pursuant to the direction under section 104(b) of the CPSIA, the Commission is
Submit comments by December 13, 2016.
Comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of the labeling and instructional literature requirements of the proposed mandatory standard for baby changing products should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974, or emailed to
Other comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2016-0023, may be submitted electronically or in writing:
Mark Kumagai, Project Manager, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: 301-987-2234; email:
Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, part of the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, requires the Commission to: (1) Examine and assess the effectiveness of voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products, in consultation with representatives of consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. Any standard the Commission adopts under this directive must be substantially the same as the applicable voluntary standard or more stringent, if the Commission determines that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product.
A “durable infant or toddler product,” as defined in section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA, is “a durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age of 5 years.” Section 104(f)(2) lists examples of “durable infant or toddler products,” such as cribs, high chairs, and strollers. Although this list of example products does not include baby changing products, baby changing products satisfy the statutory definition, as they are intended for use by children under the age of 5 years and are durable products made of sturdy material that last for several years; they are similar to the example products listed in the CPSIA; and the Commission has identified changing tables as “durable infant or toddler products” in the product registration rule that the Commission issued under section 104(d) of the CPSIA. 16 CFR 1130.2(a)(14).
Pursuant to section 104(b)(1)(A) of the CPSIA, the Commission consulted with representatives of manufacturers, consumer groups, consultants, retailers, and industry trade groups in reviewing and assessing the effectiveness of the existing voluntary standard for baby changing products, ASTM F2388-16, largely through ASTM International's (ASTM; formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials) standard-development process. The standard the Commission proposes in this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) is based on ASTM F2388-16 with more stringent requirements for structural integrity, restraint system integrity, and warnings on labels and in instructional literature.
The testing and certification requirements of section 14(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA; 15 U.S.C. 2051-2089) apply to the standards promulgated under section 104 of the CPSIA. Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the Commission to publish an NOR for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (
ASTM F2388-16 applies to baby changing tables and other changing products. The standard defines “changing tables” as “elevated, freestanding structures” designed “to support and retain a child” with a body weight up to 30 pounds (13.6 kilograms) for the purpose of a diaper change. Changing tables may convert to other furniture pieces, such as dressers or play yards, and they may have storage or other pull-out or drop-down features. ASTM F2388-16 also applies to other changing products, such as contoured changing pads and add-on changing units that are sold separately for use on furniture products other than changing tables. Contoured changing pads have barriers designed to keep children up to 30 pounds on the pad for diaper changes on elevated surfaces. Add-on changing units are used with pieces of furniture to provide changing surfaces and/or barriers to keep children on the products during diaper changes.
The majority of changing tables and add-on changing units are made of wood; contoured changing pads are generally made of a combination of synthetic-covered foam. Changing tables come in various designs, some of which
Throughout this NPR, the Commission uses the term “baby changing products” to refer to changing tables and other changing products, such as contoured changing pads and add-on changing units that are sold separately for use on furniture products other than changing tables.
Commission staff identified 85 firms, including manufacturers, importers, and wholesalers, that supply baby changing products to the U.S. market. Seventy-one of these firms are domestic, consisting of 57 manufacturers, 12 importers, one wholesaler, and one retailer; 14 are foreign, consisting of 12 manufacturers, one importer, and one retailer. Of the domestic firms, 59 are small businesses, as discussed is Section XI. Regulatory Flexibility Act, below, and 12 are large. Eighty-one of the firms market their products to consumers, while seven also market them for commercial daycare use. Fifty-six of the firms offer multiple baby changing products.
Stand-alone changing tables intended for home use range widely in price, from approximately $35 to $1,400. Other baby changing products also vary greatly in price. Contoured changing pads range from about $7 to $100; add-on changing units, such as changing trays, range from approximately $12 to $1,050; and other baby products, such as cribs, play yards, dressers, and bath tubs, with attachable or built-in baby changing products, range from approximately $100 to $4,500.
The Commission receives data regarding product-related injuries from several sources. One such source is the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), from which CPSC can estimate the number of injuries associated with specific consumer products that are treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments (EDs) nationwide, based on a probability sample. Other sources include reports from consumers and others through the Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System (which also includes some NEISS data) and reports from retailers and manufacturers through CPSC's Retailer Reporting System (collectively referred to as Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System data (CPSRMS)).
Commission staff reviewed the NEISS and CPSRMS databases for incidents involving baby changing products involving children younger than 3 years old because that age corresponds with the 30-pound weight limit in the definition of “changing tables.”
Through CPSRMS sources, the Commission has received 182 reports of incidents related to baby changing products that occurred between 2005 and 2015. These reports include five fatalities, 30 injuries or adverse health problems, 113 incidents that did not result in injuries, and 34 incidents for which the Commission did not receive sufficient information to determine whether an injury occurred.
EDs participating in NEISS reported 1,305 injuries and no deaths related to baby changing products between 2005 and 2014. Extrapolating from this probability sample, there were approximately 31,780 injuries and no fatalities related to baby changing products treated in EDs between 2005 and 2014. In analyzing the number of injuries that occurred each year between 2005 and 2014, Commission staff found that there was a statistically significant increasing trend in injuries over this period. The NEISS data also indicates that the incidence of injuries was the same for males and females and that 75 percent of the injured children were under 1 year old.
The Commission received reports of five fatalities associated with baby changing products between 2005 and 2015. The five reported deaths all involved caregivers using baby changing products as sleep products, which is not their intended use. All of the victims in these incidents were younger than 1 year old.
Four of the incidents involved play yards with changing table attachments. In one of these cases, a strap hanging from a changing table accessory in a play yard strangled a child sleeping in the play yard beneath. In the remaining four deaths, children asphyxiated while sleeping on a baby changing product; three of the products were the changing table attachments on play yards, and one was a portable changing pad placed in a crib as a sleep positioner.
In three of the reports regarding these fatalities, the caregivers and investigators appeared to be mistaken about the intended use of the product, referring to the changing table product as a “crib” and “bassinet.”
Of the 182 CPSRMS incidents related to baby changing products that occurred between 2005 and 2015, 30 reportedly resulted in injuries or adverse health problems. The most frequently cited injuries were cuts, lacerations, scratches, and bruises; however, there were several more serious injuries reported as well. Three reports indicated that the victim visited the hospital; in one incident involving a leg injury, the victim was treated and released, and in two incidents involving a skull fracture and leg fracture, respectively, the victims were admitted to hospitals.
For injuries estimated through NEISS, 94 percent were treated and released, while 5 percent were admitted to the hospital. The most commonly injured body parts were the head (71 percent) and face (13 percent). The most common types of injuries were injuries to internal organs (50 percent), contusions or abrasions (27 percent), and fractures (9 percent). Of those injuries affecting internal organs, 99 percent were head injuries; of those injuries resulting in contusions or abrasions, 83 percent affected the victim's head or face.
CPSC staff reviewed NEISS and CPSRMS data to identify hazard patterns associated with baby changing products. Both sets of data revealed several common hazard patterns, but because CPSRMS data sources generally provide greater detail about incidents, staff was able to identify more distinct hazard patterns using that data. Five hazard patterns emerged from staff's review: (1) Issues with structural integrity, (2) design hazards, (3) problems with restraint systems, (4) miscellaneous problems, and (5) undetermined hazards. Table 1 provides the frequency of each hazard pattern and category.
Structural integrity issues include collapsing or unstable products, hardware issues, and assembly problems. This hazard pattern accounted for approximately 65 percent of CPSRMS incident reports (119 of 182 incidents). Fifty-five percent of the reported incidents in this hazard pattern involved collapsing baby changing products or parts (with 50 percent of those reports attributable to three particular models). The next most common type of structural integrity issue was unstable baby changing products.
Product design issues included limb entrapments, in parts such as slats, rails, and doors, chipping finishes, unstable steps, pinching, children hitting their heads on metal parts, and a strangulation hazard from a restraint strap in a play yard changing table accessory. Approximately 21 percent of incidents reported through CPSRMS (38 of 182) fell into this hazard pattern. The majority of these incidents involved accessory components that are common to other furniture, as well as changing tables, and are not generally accessible to children when occupying a changing table as intended.
About 8 percent of incidents (14 of 182) related to restraint systems, which include loose, broken, or detached straps, cracked or faulty buckles, pinching, choking on small parts, and the absence of a restraint system.
Approximately 4 percent of CPSRMS incidents (8 of 182) involved miscellaneous issues, including chemical odors and the use of changing tables for unintended purposes, such as sleeping. All of the deaths associated with baby changing products involved children sleeping on the products.
Two percent of the incident reports (3 of 182) did not provide sufficient information for Commission staff to identify a hazard pattern.
The most frequently reported event associated with an injury in both NEISS and CPSRMS data involved children falling off, or through, baby changing products. Within NEISS data, 94 percent of injuries involved falls, while 64 percent of non-fatal CPSRMS incidents involved children falling from baby changing products. These incidents were prevalent in the structural integrity and restraint system hazard patterns. Eight of the CPSRMS fall incidents were the result of the baby changing product or supporting structure collapsing. Ten of the 14 restraint system incidents resulted in actual or potential falls, and one resulted in injury.
Some of the fall incidents resulted in injuries of varying severity. Within the NEISS incidents, several of the fall injuries resulted in a serious head injury, such as a concussion or fractured skull. Ten CPSRMS incidents involving falls also resulted in injuries. One of these 10 incidents resulted in a fractured skull, one a fractured leg, seven involved minor injuries, such as bruises, scratches, and lacerations that did not require medical attention and one did not indicate the severity of injury. Additionally, in several cases, caregivers reported catching a falling child, potentially preventing injuries.
Since January 1, 2005, two firms have recalled baby changing products. In 2006, one firm recalled approximately 130 baby changing products, due to a fall hazard. The products included cloth sections secured by zippers to support occupants. The firm found that if the zipper was misaligned, the cloth section supporting an occupant could detach. In 2007, a second firm recalled approximately 425,000 baby changing products. The product was an infant play yard with a raised changing table accessory that had a restraint strap that formed a loop beneath the changing table, posing a strangulation hazard to a child in the play yard. This recalled product was associated with one child's death.
CPSC is aware of two international standards that apply to baby changing products:
• ASTM F2388-16, and
• British/European Standard BS EN 12221: 2008,
CPSC staff reviewed the provisions in these standards and believes that ASTM F2388-16 best addresses the hazard patterns indicated in the incident data, and in most areas, ASTM F2388-16 includes more stringent requirements than the European standard. For example, although both standards require barrier durability testing, ASTM F2388-16 requires pre-conditioning or aging of contoured changing pads before testing. In contrast, the European standard does not require precondition or aging, which makes ASTM F2388-16 the more stringent standard.
There are some areas in which the European standard includes more stringent requirements than ASTM F2388-16. For example, the European standard limits the dimensions of cords and loops, while ASTM F2388-16 does not. However, the incident data does not indicate that cords or loops present a safety hazard, apart from the one strangulation death involving a loop in a play yard, but the play yard standard has since been updated to address that hazard. In reviewing this and other provisions in which the European standard is more stringent than ASTM F2388-16, Commission staff found that the incident data does not indicate that the more stringent requirement is necessary to reduce the risk of injury, and further determined that the requirements in ASTM F2388-16 are sufficient.
Some requirements in the two standards differ in ways that make it difficult to compare their relative stringency. Nevertheless, for these requirements, Commission staff believes that ASTM F2388-16 arguably is more stringent, the incident data does not demonstrate that the European standard is necessary, or the additional requirements proposed in this NPR are the most effective method of addressing the risk. For example, the stability tests in ASTM F2388-16 and the European standard differ in ways that make them difficult to compare, but the incident data indicates that tip-over incidents are not an issue, which suggests that ASTM F2388-16, to which many manufacturers conform, is adequate. Likewise, the load tests in ASTM F2388-16 and the European standard differ, but staff believes that the ASTM test reflects actual load conditions better. Moreover, this NPR proposes additional, more stringent requirements for this test that are not in either standard.
Based on these comparisons, CPSC believes that ASTM F2388-16, in general, is more stringent than the European standard and is better tailored to address the hazard patterns evident in the incident data.
ASTM first approved and published a standard for baby changing products in July 2004, as ASTM F2388-04,
• Expanding the scope of the standard to include changing table products, such as contoured changing pads and add-on changing units;
• requiring preconditioning before conducting barrier testing on contoured changing pads;
• marking packaging with the maximum occupant weight; and
• requiring toy accessories to comply with applicable safety requirements.
ASTM approved the current version of the standard, ASTM F2388-16, on July 1, 2016.
CPSC staff, together with stakeholders on the ASTM subcommittee task group for baby changing products, developed modified and new requirements for ASTM F2388-16 to address the hazards associated with these products. ASTM F2388-16 includes the following key provisions: Scope, terminology, calibration and standardization, general requirements, performance requirements, test methods, marking and labeling, and instructional literature. The following provides an overview of these provisions. To view the complete standard, see the instructions in Section IX. Incorporation by Reference.
This section states the scope and intent of the standard.
This section provides definitions of terms specific to the standard.
This section provides general instructions for conducting tests.
This section includes general requirements addressing various safety issues, such as sharp edges and points, small parts, lead in paint, wood parts, openings, changing table attachments to play yards and non-full-size cribs, and toy accessories.
These sections contain performance requirements and associated test methods for baby changing products. The following summarizes key requirements in these sections.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
This section specifies testing and criteria for determining the permanency of labels.
This section contains various requirements related to warnings, package markings, and labels including content, format, and placement requirements.
This section requires instructions to accompany baby changing products, be easy to read and understand, and include specific content.
ASTM, with the participation of CPSC staff, has continued to review the effectiveness of ASTM F2388-16 in light of incidents and hazard patterns. As a result, ASTM has developed additional requirements that are currently under review. ASTM participants have voted on some of these changes and submitted comments, and the committee reviewing ASTM F2388-16 is working to resolve these comments. The requirements that the Commission proposes in this NPR that are more stringent than the requirements in ASTM F2388-16 are the same as, or similar to, the requirements ASTM is currently reviewing. ASTM has authorized the Commission to print requirements that are the same as, or similar to, those ASTM drafted and is currently reviewing.
Additionally, an ASTM group, referred to as the ASTM Ad Hoc Wording Task Group, with CPSC staff's input, has reviewed warning requirements, in general, to develop one set of requirements that would be useful for various standards. The ASTM Ad Hoc Wording Task Group developed recommendations for product warnings, particularly focusing on form, to provide effective and uniform warning requirements that can be adapted for various products. The goal of this effort was to have one consistent set of requirements from which ASTM committees could draw and adjust, as necessary, when developing or revising individual product standards. The result of the group's work is a set of recommendations, rather than a formalized standard. The ASTM Ad Hoc Wording Task Group requested ASTM participants' input on these recommendations in early 2016, received feedback, and has since finalized its warning recommendations.
Because of the ongoing review and revision of ASTM F2388-16 and the ASTM Ad Hoc Wording Task Group's recommendations, the Commission may, after reviewing comments, finalize the rule as proposed in this NPR or incorporate by reference a revised ASTM standard if that standard adopts changes consistent with the requirements that the Commission proposes in this NPR.
CPSC staff evaluated ASTM F2388-16 in light of the fatalities, injuries, and non-injury incidents associated with baby changing products that occurred between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2015 to determine whether the voluntary standard addresses the risk of injury associated with baby changing products or whether a more stringent standard would further reduce the hazards. CPSC believes that ASTM F2388-16 effectively addresses the hazards indicated in the incident data, with the exception of three areas—structural integrity, restraint system integrity, and warnings on labels and in instructional literature. CPSC proposes more stringent requirements for these areas to further reduce the risk of injury associated with baby changing products.
This section provides CPSC's assessments of how ASTM F2388-16 addresses the hazard patterns shown in the incident data.
There were 119 CPSRMS incidents involving the structural integrity of baby changing products. The most common incidents in this category involved unstable changing tables and collapses, with the majority of incidents (55 of 119) involving changing table surfaces cracking or collapsing. More than half of these reports involved three particular changing table models. Falls resulting from these instability issues or collapses made up the majority of injuries reported through NEISS and 80 percent of the injuries reported through CPSRMS.
Although most of the reported collapses resulted in minor injuries, such as scrapes and bruises, falls have the potential for serious injuries, such as severe head injuries, which can have long-term effects. As mentioned, some fall injuries have resulted in serious head injuries, such as concussions and fractured skulls, or other fractured bones. Serious head injuries, such as concussions and skull fractures, can cause extensive brain damage and affect development.
The next most common problem in this category was unstable baby changing products, half of which involved cantilevered changing accessories for play yards tilting under the weight of an occupant. No injuries were reported for these incidents.
ASTM F2388-16 has two provisions intended to address the structural integrity of changing tables—a stability test and a structural integrity test. The stability test requires a product to remain upright when testers apply a load that is greater than the maximum recommended weight limit for product occupants to the edge most likely to tip over. The structural integrity test requires baby changing products to withstand a specified load for a set amount of time, without damage.
In addition, ASTM F2388-16 requires baby changing products to have warning labels with specific content about fall hazards, and requires instructions on secure use of contoured changing pads and add-on changing units. ASTM F2388-16 also includes form and placement requirements for warnings and similar content requirements for instructional literature to make the warnings and instructions visible and understandable.
The stability and structural integrity tests have been in ASTM F2388, in a similar form, since ASTM first published the standard in 2004. However, despite these requirements, the incident data still reveals a high occurrence of structural integrity issues. Likewise, fall incidents continue, despite the warnings required in ASTM F2388-16. Therefore, CPSC believes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury from collapses and falls. Section VII. Description of Proposed Changes to ASTM Standard, discusses CPSC's proposed requirements regarding threaded fasteners, secondary support straps, and warnings that address this hazard.
There were 38 CPSRMS incidents involving design hazards. These issues included children becoming entrapped in gaps between vertical slats and beneath horizontal rails; children pinching their fingers in drawers or doors; and problems with finishes, such as chipped surface coatings. There was also one fatality associated with this hazard pattern, in which a changing accessory restraint strap in a play yard strangled a child.
Several general requirements in ASTM F2388-16 address this hazard pattern, including provisions on sharp points and edges, small parts, surface coatings, wood parts, and openings. ASTM F2388-16 also includes specific performance requirements for protective components and to prevent entrapments in enclosed openings and shelves. Additionally, ASTM has since revised its play yard standard to address the changing accessory restraint strap hazard.
Most of the incidents in this category involved accessory components that are common in many other types of furniture and are not accessible to children when they are in the changing table as intended. All of the pinching incidents involved children who were not on the baby changing product and involved the same hazard that is present on numerous other furniture items. Commission staff also found that the gaps in changing tables that have entrapped children's limbs are similar in size and shape to spaces between crib slats. When the Commission reviewed the same entrapment hazard for cribs, it found that reducing opening sizes may not prevent entrapments, but instead, may result in younger children being entrapped or pinched, making it difficult to develop a requirement that would prevent all entrapments.
Consequently, the Commission believes that ASTM F2388-16 adequately addresses this hazard pattern and more stringent requirements would not further reduce the risk of injury.
There were 14 CPSRMS incidents involving restraint systems, including broken straps, detached straps, loose or broken buckles, and concerns that products did not have restraint systems. Ten of these 14 incidents resulted in actual or potential falls, and one resulted in an injury. One of these reports, and several other fall incident reports, indicated that the caregiver was near the child at the time of the fall, indicating that incidents can occur even when a caregiver is nearby.
ASTM F2388-16 does not include any requirements regarding restraint systems. It does not require restraint systems in baby changing products, but also does not prohibit them; nor does the standard include any performance requirements for restraint systems that are included with products. There are
CPSC believes that ASTM F2388-16 requirements, particularly regarding barriers, adequately address the risks that restraint systems are designed to mitigate. Accordingly, it is not necessary to require restraint systems on baby changing products. Therefore, the Commission is not proposing a more stringent requirement to mandate the presence of restraint systems on baby changing products. However, the incident data suggests that when a restraint system is present, caregivers expect it to be effective. If caregivers expect restraints to be effective, they are likely to rely on them, necessitating that the restraints function effectively when included on a product.
Because there are numerous incidents involving restraint systems breaking during normal use, the Commission considers the existing absence of restraint system requirements to be inadequate. As such, when restraints are provided, the Commission believes that more stringent requirements regarding restraint system integrity would further reduce the risk of injury. Section VII. Description of Proposed Changes to ASTM Standard, discusses CPSC's proposed requirements regarding restraint systems.
There were eight CPSRMS incidents involving miscellaneous issues with baby changing products. These reports included complaints of chemical odors and caregivers using baby changing products as sleep products. Each of the five reported deaths related to baby changing products involved children sleeping on the products. In three of these deaths, caregivers placed the child in the changing accessory of a play yard to sleep. In all three cases, the investigatory reports suggest that consumers may view baby changing products as suitable for sleep because parents and law enforcement personnel, in reporting these incidents, mistakenly referred to the play yard changing accessories as “cribs” or “bassinets.”
ASTM F2388-16 addresses the chemical content of baby changing products, requiring compliance with 16 CFR part 1303, which bans paint containing lead. Given this requirement, the low incidence of issues, and no injuries involving odors or chemicals, the Commission believes that ASTM F2388-16 adequately addresses this issue.
With respect to caregivers using baby changing products as sleep products, ASTM F2388-16 does not include any requirements to address this safety issue. However, five deaths resulted from children sleeping on baby changing products, which is not their intended use. The Commission believes that more stringent requirements are necessary to reduce the risk of injury associated with this hazard. Section VII. Description of Proposed Changes to ASTM Standard, discusses CPSC's proposed requirements regarding warnings and instructional literature that would address this hazard.
Three CPSRMS reports involving baby changing products did not provide sufficient information for CPSC to determine how the incidents occurred. Thus, the Commission cannot assess the effectiveness of ASTM F2388-16 in addressing these issues.
The proposed rule would create part 1235, titled,
Based on the incident data, CPSC believes that a more stringent standard for structural integrity than what is in ASTM F2388-16 would further reduce the risk of injury from collapses and falls from baby changing products. To identify requirements that would address these hazards, Commission staff reviewed incident data, evaluated design features common in baby changing products involved in incidents, and tested various baby changing products. Based on this information, Commission staff, together with ASTM, developed two provisions regarding threaded fasteners and secondary support straps to improve the structural integrity of baby changing products. Additionally, CPSC staff developed requirements for warnings in labels and instructional literature to address these issues.
Commission staff noted that many of the baby changing products involved in collapse incidents required consumers to assemble the products using self-tapping threaded fasteners, such as wood or sheet metal screws. Threaded fasteners can be difficult to install properly, and installing them incorrectly or attempting to install them multiple times can make the assembled product unstable. Multiple attempts to install threaded fasteners can strip the fastener; an over-tightened threaded fastener may crack the part it is attached to; and an under-tightened threaded fastener can create an insecure connection between parts. These issues are particularly likely with durable products, such as baby changing products, which a consumer may disassemble and reassemble for use with multiple children. Several ASTM standards for durable children's products have recognized the potential for consumers to install threaded fasteners improperly, resulting in unstable products, and certain standards prohibit them in key structural elements that consumers assemble.
For these reasons, the Commission proposes additional requirements that would provide for secure connections between fasteners and key structural elements of changing tables and products. Specifically, the Commission proposes to:
• Prohibit the use of threaded fasteners on key structural elements assembled by consumers;
• require a means of preventing manufacturer-installed metal threaded fasteners used in key structural elements from loosening (such as with lock washers); and
• require a means of preventing manufacturer-installed metal inserts in key structural elements from loosening (such as by gluing).
The Commission proposes these limits for key structural elements, such as primary changing surface supports and side, end, base, and leg assemblies to address the stability of components that support the weight of occupants. CPSC believes that these more stringent
Commission staff examined many of the baby changing products involved in reported incidents through photographs, by collecting some of the products, and by purchasing changing tables from consumers to examine their post-use condition. Through these examinations, staff observed that several consumers had not installed secondary support straps at all, or had installed them improperly. A secondary support strap is a metal band that runs under the center of the changing surface to provide additional support. Secondary support straps are generally one of the last components that consumers install when assembling baby changing products. If a consumer does not install the strap, or installs the strap incorrectly, the product does not have the added support this feature provides to enhance the product's structural integrity.
To accurately test the structural integrity of baby changing products, the Commission believes that structural integrity testing should reflect the least structurally sound condition the product may be in when consumers use it. Given that consumers often do not install secondary support straps or install them incorrectly, products should be tested without consumer-installed secondary support straps attached. Therefore, the Commission proposes to adopt the structural integrity testing required in ASTM F2388-16, but modify the test to specify that consumer-installed secondary support straps not be installed for the test. CPSC believes that this more stringent standard would further reduce the risk of injury associated with baby changing product collapses.
ASTM F2388-16 does not require or prohibit restraint systems on baby changing products and does not contain any performance requirements for restraint systems that are included with these products. As discussed, although the Commission does not believe it is necessary to require restraint systems for baby changing products, the Commission does believe that a performance standard that requires restraint systems to be effective and durable when they are included with a baby changing product would further reduce the risk of injury from falls.
To develop requirements for restraint systems that would address the hazard pattern evident in the incident data, CPSC staff conducted lab testing of products and worked with an ASTM task group to review the incident data and ASTM standards addressing restraint systems in other durable children's products. As a result of this effort, the group developed a performance test for restraint systems that identifies baby changing products that were involved in restraint system failures. This test requires any restraint provided with a baby changing product to be secured on a CAMI dummy and pulled in four directions anticipated during normal use with a 30 pound force. To pass this performance standard, straps and buckles must not break or separate from baby changing products more than 1 inch from their initial adjustment positions. CPSC believes that this more stringent standard would further reduce the risk of injury associated with restraint systems, by ensuring that those included with baby changing products function effectively.
As discussed, the most commonly-reported incidents involving baby changing products were falls, and the most common cause of fatalities was children sleeping on baby changing products. ASTM F2388-16 requires warnings about falls on labels and in instructional literature, but the standard does not require any warnings about the suffocation hazard when children sleep on baby changing products. Considering the frequency and severity of reported incidents and deaths, CPSC believes that more stringent requirements would further reduce these risks of injury and death.
To develop appropriate warning requirements, Commission staff examined incident data and research on effective warnings, and worked with the ASTM Ad Hoc Wording Task Group. To further reduce the risk of injury associated with falls and children sleeping on baby changing products, the Commission proposes additional content and form provisions for on-product warning labels and parallel requirements for instructional literature. Tab E of CPSC staff's briefing package for this proposed rule includes additional details about these proposed requirements and the rationale for adding them. The briefing package is available at:
Section 9 of ASTM F2388-16 requires baby changing products to be labeled with a warning that states: “FALL HAZARD—To prevent death or serious injury, always keep child within arm's reach.” Additionally, removable pads that are intended to be attached to a support surface must warn users: “Always secure this pad to the support surface by [insert instructions on securing the changing pad]. See instructions.” And for contoured changing pads and add-on changing units sold separately, warnings must specify products they attach to or specify that the support surface should be “level, stable, and structurally sound,” along with the minimum support surface dimensions. Section 10 of ASTM F2388-16 requires the same warnings to appear in instructional literature for baby changing products.
ASTM F2388-16 does not include warning requirements regarding children sleeping on baby changing products.
To develop proposed warning language, Commission staff reviewed information developed through research on the content of warnings, assessed other standards, and reviewed the ASTM Ad Hoc Wording Task Group recommendations. Literature and guidelines about warnings consistently recommend that warnings include:
• A description of the hazard;
• information about the consequences of exposure to the hazard; and
• instructions about appropriate hazard-avoidance behaviors.
The Commission believes that the warning statements in ASTM F2388-16 lack important details regarding fall and suffocation hazards, their consequences, and appropriate avoidance behaviors. Moreover, the Commission believes that the warning statements in the standard provide only a vague description of the types of injuries that may occur from falls and the statements do not refer to suffocation at all. The Commission believes that strengthening the requirements in ASTM F2388-16 would further reduce the risk of injury associated with falls and suffocation. Additionally, the Commission believes that these proposed changes would improve readability and consistency across standards. CPSC developed the following proposed language to describe the specific hazards, consequent injuries and dangers, and precise actions that can help reduce the likelihood of falls and suffocation. CPSC proposes to require the following warning label to appear on baby changing products:
• STAY in arm's reach.
• STAY in arm's reach.
• ALWAYS secure this pad to the support surface by [manufacturer's instructions for securing the changing product].
• NEVER allow baby to sleep on changing pad.
Additionally, the Commission proposes minor changes to the language in section 9 of ASTM F2388-16, as detailed in the proposed regulatory text, to make the warnings clearer, and thereby, more effective and consistent with similar standards.
Research indicates that the form of a warning can affect the extent to which consumers notice and read the warning and can communicate the seriousness of a hazard, which can affect compliance with the warning. ASTM F2388-16 does not include any form requirements for on-product warnings, apart from text size, and does not include any form requirements for warnings in instructional literature.
As discussed, Commission staff worked closely with the ASTM Ad Hoc Wording Task Group to develop recommendations for product warnings, particularly focused on form, to provide effective and uniform warning requirements. The requirements for warnings on labeling and in instructional literature that the Commission is proposing in this NPR are drawn from the ASTM Ad Hoc Wording Task Group's recommendations.
The ASTM Ad Hoc Wording Task Group's recommendations are largely consistent with ANSI Z535.4,
CPSC considered research on effective forms for warnings, including the requirements in ANSI Z535.4, in developing the proposed form requirements. Commission staff and the ASTM Ad Hoc Wording Task Group modified these requirements to account for the unique nature of durable nursery products, the wide range of such products, industry concerns, and insights from CPSC's past rulemakings on durable nursery products. The resulting recommendations and the requirements the Commission proposes in this NPR are designed to increase consumer attention to warnings, improve comprehension, and increase behaviors that would minimize hazards. These proposed requirements include:
• Warnings must conform to the 2011 edition of ANSI Z535.4, which is incorporated by reference into the regulations with certain exceptions;
• warnings must be easy to read and understand, and be in English;
• warnings must be permanent;
• additional markings or labels must not contradict the required warning information or be confusing or misleading; and
• the specific typefaces, size, alignment, layout, and text formats to use to facilitate readability.
The Commission believes that these requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with falls and suffocation, by making the warnings regarding these risks more effective. The Commission proposes the same design requirements for on-product warnings and warnings in instructional literature, except that instructional literature need not meet the color requirements in ANSI Z535.4.
Additionally, CPSC proposes to include a note in the regulatory text, referencing ANSI Z535.6,
ASTM F2388-16 requires warning labels to be “conspicuous,” that is, visible to a caretaker standing in a place normally associated with changing a diaper. The Commission believes that this requirement is adequate because it provides caregivers the opportunity to see a warning during routine use of the product and just before they would leave a child unattended, sleeping, or out of their reach on the baby changing product. This requirement is also consistent with ANSI Z535.4.
The Commission also proposes several additional minor changes that would further reduce the risk of injury associated with baby changing products and provide greater clarity or detail regarding requirements in ASTM F2388-16. These include:
• Adding definitions for “key structural elements” and “non-rigid add-on changing unit accessory”;
• adding a provision to prohibit components attached by screws from separating more than 0.04 in. (1 mm) after structural integrity testing; and
• requiring a marking including both the address and telephone number of the manufacturer, distributor, or seller, rather than one or the other.
The proposed definitions would add clarity to the standard and are relevant to the additional requirements. “Key structural elements” are central to the proposed requirements regarding threaded fasteners, and specific requirements for “non-rigid add-on changing unit accessories” are in the proposed labeling provisions. The separation limit would further reduce the risk of injury associated with structural integrity issues demonstrated in the incident data. Providing the address, as well as the telephone number for firms that supply baby changing products would provide the
Section 14 of the CPSA establishes requirements for product testing and certification. Manufacturers of products that are subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA or another rule the Commission enforces must certify, based on product testing, that their product complies with all such rules. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(1). Additionally, manufacturers of children's products that are subject to a children's product safety rule must have these products tested by a third party conformity assessment body that CPSC has accredited, and manufacturers must certify that their products comply with all applicable children's product safety rules.
The Commission published a final rule, codified at 16 CFR part 1112, titled,
NORs for new children's product safety rules, such as the baby changing products standard, require the Commission to amend part 1112. To accomplish this, as part of this NPR, the Commission proposes to amend part 1112 to add baby changing products to the list of children's product safety rules for which CPSC has issued an NOR.
Test laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body to test for compliance with the proposed standard for baby changing products would be required to meet the third party conformity assessment body accreditation requirements in part 1112. When a laboratory meets the requirements of a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body, the laboratory can apply to CPSC to have 16 CFR part 1235,
Section 1235.1 of the proposed rule incorporates by reference ASTM F2388-16 and ANSI Z535.4. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. Under these regulations, in the preamble of the NPR, an agency must summarize the incorporated material and discuss the ways in which the material is reasonably available to interested parties or how the agency worked to make the materials reasonably available. 1 CFR 51.5(a). In accordance with the OFR's requirements, Section V. ASTM F2388-16 of this preamble summarizes the provisions of ASTM F2388-16 and Section VII. Description of Proposed Changes to ASTM Standard summarizes the provisions of ANSI Z535.4 that the Commission proposes to incorporate by reference.
ASTM F2388-16 is copyrighted material. By permission of ASTM, interested parties may view the standard as a read-only document during the comment period of this NPR at:
ANSI Z535.4 is also copyrighted material. Interested parties may purchase a copy of ANSI Z535.4 from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1899 L Street NW., 11th Floor, Washington, DC 20036, or through the ANSI Web site at:
Interested parties may also inspect copies of the standard at CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923.
The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally requires that the effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). To allow time for baby changing products to come into compliance with the standard, the Commission proposes that the standard become effective 6 months after publication of the final rule in the
The Commission also proposes that the amendment to part 1112 become effective 6 months after publication of the final rule.
The Commission requests comments on the proposed effective date.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires agencies to consider the impact of proposed rules on small entities, including small businesses. Section 603 of the RFA requires the Commission to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and make it available to the public for comment when the NPR is published. The IRFA must describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities and identify significant alternatives that accomplish the statutory objectives and minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Specifically, the IRFA must discuss:
• The reasons the agency is considering the action;
• the objectives of and legal basis for the proposed rule;
• the small entities that would be subject to the proposed rule and an estimate of the number of small entities that would be impacted;
• the reporting, recordkeeping, and other requirements of the proposed rule, including the classes of small entities subject to it and the skills necessary to prepare the reports or records; and
• the relevant federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
5 U.S.C. 603.
This section summarizes the IRFA for this proposed rule. The complete IRFA is available in Tab F of staff's briefing package for this proposed rule, available at:
CPSC identified 85 firms that supply baby changing products to the U.S. market. Seventy-one of these firms are domestic (57 manufacturers, 12 importers, one wholesaler, and one retailer), and 14 are foreign (12 manufacturers, one importer, and one retailer). Eighty-one of these firms market their products to consumers, while seven also market their products for commercial daycare use. Fifty-six offer multiple types of baby changing products.
Section 104 of the CPSIA requires the CPSC to promulgate mandatory standards for durable infant or toddler products that are substantially the same as a voluntary standard or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission determines that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. As discussed in Section I. Background and Statutory Authority, baby changing products are durable infant or toddler products.
CPSC proposes to adopt ASTM F2388-16 with modifications to the structural integrity requirements, restraint system requirements, and provisions on warnings on labels and instructional literature. Section V. ASTM F2388-16 of this preamble discusses key provisions of ASTM F2388-16 and Section VII. Description of Proposed Changes to ASTM Standard discusses the proposed requirements that are more stringent than ASTM F2388-16. To help evaluate the economic impact of the proposed rule, Commission staff contacted nine industry members who would be impacted by the rule, and three responded.
CPSC has not identified any federal or state rules that would duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule.
Under U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines, a baby changing product manufacturer is a small business if it has 500 or fewer employees; importers and wholesalers are small businesses if they have 100 or fewer employees. CPSC analyzed domestic firms because SBA guidelines and definitions apply to U.S. entities. CPSC identified 85 firms that currently market baby changing products in the United States; 71 are domestic firms. Fifty-nine of these firms (49 manufacturers, 9 importers, and 1 wholesaler) are small businesses, based on the SBA guidelines and available information about the firms.
To determine the extent to which the proposed rule would impact small businesses, the Commission identified firms that comply with ASTM F2388-16 by considering the following factors: JPMA certification, the firm's claims of compliance, active participation in ASTM standards development, and CPSC compliance testing. Table 2 lists the number of firms by location, size, type, and compliance:
Looking first at the proposed requirements that would prohibit the use of consumer-installed threaded fasteners in key structural elements, the Commission believes that the overall economic impact of this requirement would be small. CPSC testing indicates that most baby changing products on the market already follow this restriction and non-compliant firms could make inexpensive changes to meet this requirement.
With respect to structural integrity testing without consumer-installed secondary support straps, it is possible that some firms would incur costs to comply with this requirement. CPSC testing indicates that some products do not pass structural integrity testing without their consumer-installed secondary support straps; however, these products are not currently on the market. The cost of complying would vary, depending on the modifications that a firm adopts.
Next, the Commission proposes to adopt a structural integrity test for restraints when they are included with a product. The Commission found that approximately 21 percent of baby changing products on the U.S. market include restraints. Through limited testing, staff found that some of these products do not meet the proposed requirement. To comply with the proposed requirement, firms have several low-cost options to reinforce restraints.
Finally, the Commission is proposing additional requirements for warnings on labels and in instructional literature. All firms would have to modify the wording and format of their warnings to meet these requirements; however, the costs of such changes are generally small, particularly compared to overall firm revenues.
Of the 49 small manufacturers, 22 produce baby changing products that comply with ASTM F2388-16, making the economic impact of adopting ASTM F2388-16 small. Additionally, the proposed requirements for threaded fasteners, restraints, and warnings likely would also create only small costs for these manufacturers. Compliant manufacturers are unlikely to use consumer-installed threaded fasteners in key structural components because other children's product standards
In contrast, the proposed additional requirement regarding user-installed secondary support straps may result in significant costs. Five of the compliant manufacturers may use consumer-installed secondary support straps. If these products do not pass the structural integrity test without these supports, the cost of modifying the products could range from minimal to great, depending on the product type and the changes employed. Therefore, staff cannot rule out a significant economic impact for the five manufacturers of compliant products that may employ user-installed secondary support straps.
Twenty-seven of the 49 small manufacturers produce baby changing products that do not comply with ASTM F2388-16. These firms may incur costs to conform to ASTM F2388-16 and the additional proposed requirements. The Commission does not have sufficient information to determine the extent and cost of these changes. Therefore, the Commission cannot rule out a significant economic impact on these firms.
Under section 14 of the CPSA, if CPSC adopts the proposed requirements, all manufacturers would be subject to the third party testing and certification requirements under 16 CFR part 1107. Third party testing would include any physical and mechanical test requirements, and the cost of obtaining testing would be in addition to the costs of meeting the baby changing products standard.
Almost half of small baby changing product manufacturers (22 out of 49) already test their products for compliance with ASTM F2388, although not necessarily through a third party laboratory. For these manufacturers, the cost of the proposed rule, with respect to third party testing, would be limited to the difference between the cost of their current testing regimes and the cost of third party tests, which is likely to be low.
Of the remaining 27 firms that do not currently test their products for compliance with ASTM F2388-16, third party testing could result in a significant economic impact for five firms. Testing costs may exceed 1 percent of gross revenue for these firms if five or fewer samples are tested (assuming high-end, U.S.-based testing costs of $1,200 per model sample). CPSC could not obtain revenue information for all of the small, non-compliant manufacturers. Therefore, CPSC could not evaluate the economic impact for six firms.
CPSC considered the economic impact to importers and wholesalers together because both rely on outside firms to supply the products they distribute to the U.S. market. The four small importers that comply with ASTM F2388-16 would require modifications to meet the proposed additional requirements. However, as discussed, the costs of complying with the additional threaded fastener, restraints, and warning requirements are likely to be low.
The proposed requirement regarding user-installed secondary support straps, however, could be more costly and possibly require firms to retrofit or redesign their products. Two of the four importers may require modifications to pass structural integrity testing under this requirement. Both firms could eliminate changing products from their product lines without a significant adverse impact, but likely could not use an alternate supplier.
There is insufficient information to rule out a significant impact for any of the five importers and one wholesaler of non-compliant baby changing products. Whether there would be a significant economic impact would depend on the extent of the changes required for these firms to come into compliance and the response of their suppliers, who may pass on the increased costs to the importers and wholesalers.
Four of the six importers and wholesalers with non-compliant products do not appear to have direct ties to their suppliers and may select alternative suppliers. Three of these firms supply numerous products. Thus, they could stop supplying baby changing products. However, one firm only supplies baby changing products, so there would be a significant economic impact if that firm left the market.
The remaining two firms are tied to their foreign suppliers, so they are not likely to choose alternative suppliers. However, these foreign suppliers may comply with the proposed requirements to continue to market their products in the United States. Alternatively, these firms may stop selling baby changing products altogether because they represent only a small portion of their product lines. Without sales revenues, CPSC could not determine whether exiting the baby changing products market would generate significant economic impacts.
Importers and wholesalers would be subject to costs similar to manufacturers' costs if their foreign suppliers do not obtain third party testing. Four importers already test their products to verify compliance with the ASTM standard. As such, their costs would be limited to the incremental costs of third party testing over their current testing regimes.
There may be significant costs for two or three firms that do not comply with the ASTM standard. For two firms, the cost of testing as few as two units per model could exceed 1 percent of their gross revenues. For a third firm, testing costs may exceed 1 percent of its gross revenue, depending on how many units per model the firm tests. CPSC was unable to obtain revenue data for one small, non-compliant wholesaler, so could not examine the size of the impact on that firm.
The Commission identified 59 small firms that market baby changing products in the United States, of which 49 are domestic manufacturers and 10 are domestic importers or wholesalers. Of the 49 small manufacturers, 17 are unlikely to experience significant economic impacts if the Commission adopts the proposed rule. However, CPSC cannot rule out a significant economic impact for the remaining 32 manufacturers. For two of the small importers and wholesalers, it is likely that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact. However, it is possible that the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on the remaining eight small importers and wholesalers. Therefore, to summarize, CPSC cannot rule out a significant economic impact for 40 of the 59 small firms (68 percent) operating in the U.S. baby changing products market.
In accordance with section 14 of the CPSA, all children's products that are subject to a children's product safety rule must be tested by a third party conformity assessment body that has been accredited by CPSC. These third party conformity assessment bodies test products for compliance with applicable children's product safety rules. Testing laboratories that want to conduct this testing must meet the NOR for third party conformity testing. CPSC has codified NORs in 16 CFR part 1112. CPSC proposes to amend 16 CFR part 1112 to establish an NOR for testing laboratories to test for compliance with the proposed baby changing products standard. This section assesses the impact of this proposed amendment on small laboratories.
CPSC conducted a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) when it adopted part 1112. 78 FR 15836 (Mar. 12, 2013). The FRFA concluded that the accreditation requirements would not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small laboratories because no requirements were imposed on laboratories that did not intend to provide third party testing services. The only laboratories that were expected to provide such services were laboratories that anticipated receiving sufficient revenue from the mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements as a business decision.
For the same reasons, including the NOR for baby changing products in part 1112 would not have a significant adverse impact on small laboratories. Moreover, CPSC expects that only a small number of laboratories would request accreditation to test baby changing products, based on the number of laboratories that have applied for CPSC accreditation to test other juvenile products. Most laboratories would already have accreditation to test for conformance to other juvenile product standards; accordingly, the only cost would be to add the baby changing products standard to their accreditation. Test laboratories have indicated that this cost is extremely low when they are already accredited for other CPSIA section 104 rules. Therefore, the Commission certifies that the NOR for the baby changing products standard will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
At least three alternatives are available to minimize the economic impact on small entities supplying baby changing products, while also complying with the direction of section 104 of the CPSIA.
First, the Commission could adopt ASTM F2388-16, with no modifications. Section 104 of the CPSIA directs the Commission to promulgate a standard that is either substantially the same as the voluntary standard or more stringent if the Commission determines that would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. Therefore, adopting ASTM F2388-16 with no modifications is the least stringent rule CPSC could adopt. This alternative would reduce the economic impact on all of the small businesses supplying baby changing products to the U.S. market. Although choosing this alternative would not reduce the testing costs associated with the rule, this alternative would eliminate the economic impact of the additional proposed requirements. This option would eliminate the cost of complying with the additional requirements for the 22 small domestic manufacturers and four small importers and wholesalers with baby changing products that conform to ASTM F2388-16. However, adopting ASTM F2388-16 with no modifications would not further reduce the risks associated with falls and suffocations.
Second, the Commission could adopt ASTM F2388-16 with the proposed modifications, except for the requirement regarding secondary support straps. This additional requirement is likely to have the largest economic impact, and removing it would reduce the impact on 11 small suppliers (9 small manufactures and 2 small importers). However, without this requirement, the standard may not reduce the risk of injuries associated with falls as effectively.
Third, the Commission could set a later effective date for the final rule. A later effective date would reduce the economic impact on firms in two ways. First, firms would be less likely to experience a lapse in production or imports if they are unable to modify their products and secure third party testing within the required timeframe. Second, firms could spread costs over a longer period, thereby reducing annual costs and the present value of total costs. CPSC requests comments on the 6-month effective date.
The Commission would find comments on the following issues particularly helpful:
• The changes, costs, and time needed to conform to ASTM F2388-16;
• how affected firms would modify their products, the associated costs, and the time needed to meet each of the proposed requirements regarding:
○ Threaded fasteners;
○ consumer-installed secondary support straps;
○ restraint system integrity; and
○ labels and instructional literature;
• whether a particular effective date, or time of year would reduce the costs associated with the proposed requirements;
• whether the costs of complying with the proposed ban of consumer-installed threaded fasteners on key structural elements would be “economically significant” (
• the types of baby changing products that include user-installed secondary support straps and their prevalence in the U.S. market;
• the extent to which firms would remove restraints entirely, rather than conform to the proposed requirement, and the associated costs;
• testing costs and incremental costs of third party testing (
• the number of products that must be tested to provide a “high degree of assurance” with respect to third party testing.
The Commission's regulations outline the types of agency actions that require an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). Rules that have “little or no potential for affecting the human environment” fall within a “categorical exclusion” under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4231-4370h) and the regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and do not normally require an EA or EIS. As stated in 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1), rules or safety standards that provide design or performance requirements for products fall within that categorical exclusion. Because this proposed rule would create design and performance requirements for baby changing products, the proposed rule falls within the categorical exclusion. Thus, no EA or EIS is required.
This proposed rule contains information collection requirements that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of Management and
• A title for the collection of information;
• a summary of the collection of information;
• a brief description of the need for the information and the proposed use of the information;
• a description of the likely respondents and proposed frequency of response to the collection of information;
• an estimate of the burden that shall result from the collection of information; and
• notice that comments may be submitted to OMB.
CPSC's estimate is based on the following:
Section 9.1.1 of ASTM F2388-16 requires that the name and place of business (mailing address) or the telephone number of the manufacturer, distributor, or seller appear on each baby changing product and its retail package. The additional requirements proposed in this NPR would require both the specified address information and the telephone number, instead of a choice between the two. Section 9.1.2 of ASTM F2388-16 requires a code mark or other product identification on each product and retail package that indicates the date (month and year) of manufacture.
Eighty-five known entities supply baby changing products to the U.S. market and may need to modify their existing labels to comply with ASTM F2388-16. CPSC estimates that the time required to make these modifications is about 1 hour per model. Based on an evaluation of supplier product lines, each entity supplies an average of six models of baby changing products. Therefore, the estimated burden associated with labels is 1 hour per model × 85 entities × 6 models per entity = 510 hours. CPSC estimates the hourly compensation for the time required to create and update labels is $33.02 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,” Mar. 2016, Table 9, total compensation for all sales and office workers in goods-producing private industries:
Section 10.1 of ASTM F2388-16 requires instructions to be supplied with baby changing products. Baby changing products generally require use and assembly instructions. As such, products sold without use and assembly instructions would not compete successfully with those that supply this information. Under OMB's regulations, the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a collection of information incurred by parties in the “normal course of their activities” are excluded from a burden estimate when an agency demonstrates that the disclosure activities required are “usual and customary.” 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). CPSC is unaware of baby changing products that generally require use or assembly instructions but lack such instructions. Therefore, CPSC estimates that no burden hours are associated with section 10.1 of ASTM F2388-16 because any burden associated with supplying instructions with baby changing products would be “usual and customary,” and thus, excluded from “burden” estimates under OMB's regulations.
Based on this analysis, the proposed standard for baby changing products would impose a burden to industry of 510 hours at a cost of $16,840 annually.
CPSC has submitted the information collection requirements of this rule to OMB for review in accordance with PRA requirements. 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). CPSC requests that interested parties submit comments regarding information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see the
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Commission invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of CPSC's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• the accuracy of CPSC's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information the Commission proposes to collect;
• ways to reduce the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology; and
• the estimated burden hours associated with modifying labels and instructional literature, including any alternative estimates.
Under section 26(a) of the CPSA, no state or political subdivision of a state may establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury as a federal consumer product safety standard under the CPSA unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. 15 U.S.C. 2075(a). States or political subdivisions of states may, however, apply to the Commission for an exemption, allowing them to establish or continue such a requirement if the state requirement provides a significantly high degree of protection from the risk of injury and
One of the functions of the CPSIA was to amend the CPSA, adding several provisions to CPSA, including CPSIA section 104 in 15 U.S.C. 2056a. As such, consumer product safety standards that the Commission creates under CPSIA section 104 are covered by the preemption provision in the CPSA. Consequently, the rule proposed in this NPR would be a federal consumer product safety standard, and the preemption provision in section 26 of the CPSA would apply.
This NPR begins a rulemaking proceeding under section 104(b) of the CPSIA to issue a consumer product safety standard for baby changing products and to amend part 1112 to add baby changing products to the list of children's product safety rules for which CPSC has issued an NOR. We invite all interested persons to submit comments on any aspect of the proposed mandatory safety standard for baby changing products and on the proposed amendment to part 1112. Specifically, the Commission requests comments on the following:
• The requirements in ASTM F2388-16, including their effectiveness in addressing the risks of injury associated with baby changing products and the costs of complying with these requirements;
• the additional requirements proposed for structural integrity, specifically regarding threaded fasteners and secondary support straps, including their effectiveness in addressing the risk of injury associated with collapses and falls and the costs of complying with these requirements;
• the additional requirement proposed for restraint systems, including its effectiveness in addressing the risk of injury associated with restraints and falls and the costs of complying with this requirement;
• the additional requirements proposed for labels and instructional literature, including their effectiveness at addressing the hazards associated with falls and suffocation and the costs of complying with these requirements;
• the costs to small businesses associated with the requirements proposed in this NPR, including the costs to comply with the proposed additional requirements for structural integrity, restraint system integrity, and warnings on labels and in instructional literature;
• alternatives to the proposed requirements that would reduce impacts on small businesses;
• the proposed effective date and whether an extended effective date would further mitigate the impact on small businesses and to what extent; and
• any additional information relevant to the issues discussed in this NPR and the proposed requirements.
During the comment period, ASTM F2388-16 and ANSI Z535.4 are available for review. Please see Section IX. Incorporation by Reference for instructions on viewing them.
Please submit comments in accordance with the instructions in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Audit, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Third party conformity assessment body.
Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants and children, Labeling, Law enforcement, and Toys.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2063; Public Law 110-314, section 3, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008); 15 U.S.C. 2063.
(b) * * *
(45) 16 CFR part 1235, Safety Standard for Baby Changing Products.
Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016.
Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Room 820, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923, and is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for inspection 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
(a) American National Standards Institute, Inc., 1899 L Street, NW., 11th Floor, Washington, DC 20036; telephone 202-293-8020;
(1) ANSI Z535.4-2011, Product Safety Signs and Labels, 2011 (ANSI Z535.4-2011), IBR approved for § 1235.3.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) ASTM International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; telephone 877-909-2786;
(1) ASTM F2388-16, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Baby Changing Tables for Domestic Use, 2016 (ASTM F2388-16), IBR approved for § 1235.3.
(2) [Reserved]
This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for baby changing products, including changing tables and other changing products, such as contoured changing pads and add-on changing units sold separately for use on furniture products other than changing tables.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (m) of this section, each baby changing product must comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F2388-16 (incorporated by reference, see § 1235.1)
(b) Comply with ASTM F2388-16 with the additions or exclusions listed in paragraphs (c) through (m) of this section:
(c) In addition to the definitions in section 3.1 of ASTM F2388-16, the following definitions apply to this section:
(1) 3.1.14
(2) 3.1.15
(d) In addition to complying with sections 5.1 through 5.7 of ASTM F2388-16, comply with the following:
(1) 5.8
(i) 5.8.1 No changing table shall require consumer assembly of key structural elements using wood screws or sheet metal fasteners directly into wood components. This shall not apply to non-key structural elements such as drawers, secondary support straps, other storage components, or accessory items.
(ii) 5.8.2 Metal inserts, with external wood screw threads for screwing into a wood component and providing internal machine threads to accommodate a machine screw, that are used to secure key structural elements shall be glued or include other means to impede loosening or detaching.
(iii) 5.8.3 Metal threaded fasteners, such as sheet metal screws and machine screws, secured into metal components and used to attach key structural elements shall have lock washers, self-locking nuts, or other means to impede loosening or detachment during the testing required by this specification, as described in section 6.2 of ASTM F2388-16.
(2) [Reserved]
(e) Instead of complying with section 6.2 of ASTM F2388-16, comply with the following:
(1) 6.2
Contoured changing pads and add-on changing units that are sold separately are exempt from this requirement.
(2) [Reserved]
(f) In addition to complying with section 6.8 of ASTM F2388-16, comply with the following:
(1) 6.9
A restraint system may be provided to restrict upward or lateral movement of the occupant's torso. Inclusion of a restraint system is not mandatory.
(i) 6.9.1 If a restraint system is installed on the product or available as an option, it shall meet the following:
(A) 6.9.1.1 A restraint system and its closing means (for example, buckle) shall not break or separate when tested in accordance with 7.8.
(B) 6.9.1.2 The anchorages shall not separate from the unit when tested in accordance with 7.8.
(C) 6.9.1.3 Restraints shall be capable of adjustment with a positive, self-locking mechanism that is capable, when locked, of withstanding the forces of tests in 7.8 without allowing restraint movement or slippage of more than 1 in. (25.4 mm).
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) [Reserved]
(g) Instead of complying with section 7.2 of ASTM F2388-16, comply with the following:
(1) 7.2
(2) [Reserved]
(h) Instead of complying with section 7.4 of ASTM F2388-16, comply with the following:
(1) 7.4
(i) 7.4.1
(A) 7.4.1.3
(B) [Reserved]
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) [Reserved]
(i) In addition to complying with section 7.7 of ASTM F2388-16, comply with the following:
(1) 7.8
(i) 7.8.1 Secure the unit in its recommended use position so that it cannot move in the direction of the force being applied.
(ii) 7.8.2 Secure a CAMI Infant Dummy, Mark II on the changing surface in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
(iii) 7.8.3 Adjust the restraint, using the webbing tension pull device shown in Figure 1, below, so that a force of 2 lbf (9 N) applied to the restraint will provide a
(iv) 7.8.4 Using the webbing tension pull device shown in Figure 1, below, perform the following tests without readjusting the restraint system.
(A) 7.8.4.1 Within 5 s, gradually apply a pull force of 30 lbf (200 N) on the restraint strap and maintain for an additional 10 s. Release the restraint strap. Repeat this test for a total of four pulls in the following directions: Horizontally away from the table in the direction an occupant could roll, in a direction that is 45 degrees from the horizontal changing surface towards the head of the changing pad, in a direction that is 45 degrees from the horizontal changing surface towards the foot of the changing pad, and vertically straight up away from the changing pad.
(B) [Reserved]
(2) [Reserved]
(j) Instead of complying with sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 of ASTM F2388-16, comply with the following:
(1) 9.1.1 The name, place of business (mailing address, including city, state, and zip code), and telephone number of the manufacturer, distributor, or seller.
(2) 9.1.2 A code mark or other means that identifies the date (month and year as a minimum) of manufacture.
Add-on changing units, non-rigid add-on changing unit accessories, or contoured changing pads sold with non-full size cribs and play yards are exempt from the labeling requirements of 9.1.1 and 9.1.2, as labeling requirements for these accessories are included in Consumer Safety Specification F406.
(k) Instead of complying with section 9.3 of ASTM F2388-16, comply with the following:
(1) 9.3 The marking and labeling on the product shall be permanent.
(2) [Reserved]
(l) In addition to complying with section 9.3, as revised in paragraph (k) of this section, comply with the following:
(1) 9.4
(i) 9.4.1 The warning shall be easy to read and understand and be in the English language at a minimum.
(ii) 9.4.2 Any marking or labeling provided in addition to those required by this section shall not contradict or confuse the meaning of the required information, or be otherwise misleading to the consumer.
(iii) 9.4.3 The warnings shall be conspicuous and permanent.
(iv) 9.4.4 The warnings shall conform to sections 6.1-6.4, 7.2-7.6.3, and 8.1 of ANSI Z535.4-2011 (incorporated by reference, see § 1235.1), with the changes indicated in paragraph (l)(1)(iv)(A), (B), and (C) of this section
(A) 9.4.4.1 In sections 6.2.2, 7.3, 7.5, and 8.1.2, replace “should” with “shall.”
(B) 9.4.4.2 In section 7.6.3, replace “should (when feasible)” with “shall.”
(C) 9.4.4.3 Strike the word “safety” when used immediately before a color (
(v) 9.4.5 The safety alert symbol and the signal word “WARNING” shall not be less than 0.2 in. (5 mm) high. The remainder of the text shall be in characters whose upper case shall be at least 0.1 in. (2.5 mm), except where otherwise specified.
For improved warning readability, the warning designer should avoid the use of typefaces with large height-to-width ratios, which are commonly identified as “condensed,” “compressed,” “narrow,” or similar.
(vi) 9.4.6
(A) 9.4.6.1 The text shall be left aligned, ragged right for all but one-line text messages, which can be left aligned or centered.
Left aligned means that the text is aligned along the left margin, and, in the case of multiple columns of text, along the left side of each individual column.
(B) 9.4.6.2 The text in each column should be arranged in list or outline format, with precautionary (hazard avoidance) statements preceded by bullet points. Multiple precautionary statements shall be separated by bullet points if paragraph formatting is used.
(vii) 9.4.7 An example warning in the format described in this section is shown in Figure 2, below.
(2) 9.5
(i) 9.5.1 The following warning statements shall be placed on all changing tables, including add-on changing units and contoured changing pads that are sold separately:
• STAY in arm's reach.
The words in brackets provide wording options. The manufacturer should select the most appropriate term for the product and may substitute another term that is consistent with the product's marketing and instructions.
(ii) 9.5.2 Removable pads that are included with changing tables, contoured pads, non-rigid add-on changing unit accessories, and add-on changing units sold separately that are intended to be physically attached to the support surface shall have a warning on the pad or changing unit, and its retail packaging, to address the following:
• ALWAYS secure this [unit/pad] to the support [surface/frame] by (manufacturer's instructions for securing the changing unit). See instructions.
The words in the brackets provide wording options. The manufacturer should select the most appropriate term for the product and may substitute another term that is consistent with the product's marketing and instructions.
(iii) 9.5.3 Non-rigid add-on changing unit accessories, changing pads, and contoured changing pads, whether sold with the changing table or sold separately, shall include the following additional warning statements:
• NEVER allow baby to sleep [in/on] changing [table/pad/area].
The words in brackets provide wording options. The manufacturer should select the most appropriate term for the product and may substitute another term that is consistent with the product's marketing and instructions.
(iv) 9.5.4 Contoured changing pads, non-rigid add-on changing unit accessories, and add-on changing units sold separately shall include additional warnings addressing either: (a) The specific products to attach the contoured changing pad or add-on unit to; or (b) That the surface used should be level, stable, and structurally sound with minimum surface dimensions of “X” by “Y.”
(m) Instead of complying with section 10.1.1 of ASTM F2388-16, comply with the following:
(1) 10.1.1 The instructions shall contain the warnings as specified in 9.5 and address the statements in 10.1.1.1 through 10.1.1.8. These required warning statements shall meet the requirements described in 9.4, except for the color requirements provided in ANSI Z535.4-2011, (
For additional guidance on the design of warnings for instructional literature, please refer to the most-recent edition of ANSI Z535.6, Product Safety Information in Product Manuals, Instructions, and Other Collateral Materials, American National Standards Institute, Inc., available at
(2) [Reserved]
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Extension of comment period.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is extending the comment period for a proposal to amend certain of its disclosure requirements that may have become redundant, duplicative, overlapping, outdated, or superseded, in light of other Commission disclosure requirements, U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“U.S. GAAP”), International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”), or changes in the information environment [Release No. 33-10110; 34-78310; IC-32175; 81 FR 51607 (July 13, 2016)]. The release also solicits comment on certain Commission disclosure requirements that overlap with, but require information incremental to, U.S. GAAP to determine whether to retain, modify, eliminate, or refer them to the Financial Accounting Standards Board for potential incorporation into U.S. GAAP. The original comment period is scheduled to end on October 3, 2016. The Commission is extending the time period in which to provide the Commission with comments until November 2, 2016. This action will allow interested persons additional time to analyze the issues and prepare their comments.
Comments should be received on or before November 2, 2016.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment forms (
• Send an email to
• Use the Federal Rulemaking Portal (
• Send paper comments to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Studies, memoranda or other substantive items may be added by the Commission or staff to the comment file during this rulemaking. A notification of the inclusion in the comment file of any such materials will be made available on the SEC's Web site. To ensure direct electronic receipt of such notifications, sign up through the “Stay Connected” option at
Nili Shah, Deputy Chief Accountant, at (202) 551-3255, Division of Corporation Finance; Duc Dang, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-3386, Office of the Chief Accountant; Matt Giordano, Chief Accountant, at (202) 551-6918, Division of Investment Management; Valentina Minak Deng, Special Counsel, at (202) 551-5778 and Tim White, Special Counsel, at (202) 551-5777, Division of Trading and Markets; Harriet Orol, Branch Chief, at (212) 336-0554, Office of Credit Ratings; Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
The Commission has requested comment on a release proposing amendments to certain of its disclosure requirements that may have become redundant, duplicative, overlapping, outdated, or superseded, in light of other Commission disclosure requirements, U.S. GAAP, IFRS, or changes in the information environment. The release also solicited comment on certain disclosure requirements that overlap with, but require information incremental to, U.S. GAAP to determine whether to retain, modify, eliminate, or refer them to the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) for potential incorporation into U.S. GAAP.
The Commission originally requested that comments on the release be received by October 3, 2016. The Commission has received several requests for an extension of time for public comment on the proposal to, among other things, allow for adequate time to fully consider the proposals and to improve the quality of responses.
By the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
In reviewing past State Implementation Plan (SIP) actions, the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discovered minor typographical errors related to the EPA's previous approvals of Chapter 173-400 Washington Administrative Code,
Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0493 at
Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-0256; email address:
For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering establishing federal baseline water quality standards (WQS) for certain Indian reservation waters to narrow a long-standing gap in coverage of Clean Water Act (CWA) protections. Currently, fewer than 50 of over 300 tribes with reservations have WQS effective under the CWA; most of the reservations with existing CWA-effective WQS have obtained the coverage through treatment in a manner similar to a state (TAS) under CWA section 518. In advance of any potential rulemaking to address this gap of CWA coverage, EPA specifically invites comments on whether to establish such federal baseline WQS for Indian reservation waters that do not yet have WQS under the CWA and, if so, what those WQS should be and how they should be implemented. Federal baseline WQS would define water quality goals for unprotected reservation waters and serve as the foundation for CWA actions to protect human health and the environment. Such WQS, if established, would apply only to those waters not already covered by existing CWA-effective WQS and would be superseded by any WQS subsequently adopted by an authorized tribe and approved by EPA under CWA section 303(c).
Comments must be received on or before December 28, 2016. EPA intends to hold two public webinars to discuss the ANPRM during the public comment period. If you are interested, see EPA's Web site at
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0405, at
Mary Lou Soscia, Region 10, Environmental Protection Agency, 805 SW. Broadway, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97205; telephone number: (503) 326-5873; email address:
This supplementary information section is organized as follows:
Tribes, states, local governments, and citizens concerned with water quality, and how water quality may be defined and protected on Indian reservations, may be interested in this ANPRM. Entities discharging pollutants to waters of the United States may be indirectly affected by a rulemaking resulting from this ANPRM since WQS are used to develop National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits and serve as a basis for Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404 permit decisions. WQS are also the basis for assessing water quality, identifying impaired waters and developing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) under CWA sections 305(b) and 303(d). Potentially affected entities include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by a potential federal baseline WQS rule resulting from this ANPRM. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be affected by such action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. If you have questions regarding the effect of this action on a particular entity, please consult the person listed in the preceding
The CWA—initially enacted as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-500) and subsequent amendments—establishes the basic structure in place today for regulating pollutant discharges into the waters of the United States. In the CWA, Congress established the national objective to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters,” and to achieve “wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality that provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation in and on the water” (sections 101(a) and 101(a)(2)).
The CWA establishes the basis for the current WQS regulation and program. Section 301 of the CWA provides that: “the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful” except in compliance with specific requirements of Title III and IV of the CWA, including industrial and municipal effluent limitations specified under CWA section 304 and “any more stringent limitation, including those necessary to meet water quality standards, treatment standards, or schedules of compliance established pursuant to any [s]tate law or regulation.” Section 303(c) of the CWA addresses the development of state
(1) WQS shall consist of designated uses and water quality criteria based upon such uses;
(2) States and authorized tribes shall establish WQS considering the following possible uses for their waters—protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife, recreational purposes, public water supply, agricultural and industrial water supplies, navigation, and other uses;
(3) State and authorized tribal WQS must protect public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water, and serve the purposes of the CWA;
(4) States and authorized tribes must review their WQS at least once every three years; and
(5) EPA must review any new or revised state and authorized tribal WQS, and is also required to promulgate federal WQS where EPA finds that new or revised state or authorized tribal WQS are not consistent with applicable requirements of the CWA or in situations where the Administrator determines that federal WQS are necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA.
EPA established regulatory requirements in 1975,
CWA-effective WQS are the foundation of the water quality-based pollution control program mandated by the CWA and serve a dual purpose. First, WQS define the goals for a water body by designating its uses, setting criteria to protect those uses, and establishing antidegradation requirements. Second, WQS are a basis for water quality-based limits in NPDES permits (CWA sections 301(b)(1)(C) and 402), as the measure to assess whether waters are impaired (CWA section
The federal government has recognized 567 tribes. Over 300 of these tribes have reservation lands such as formal reservations, Pueblos, and informal reservations (
In the absence of applicable state or federal WQS, the principal mechanism for establishing WQS for Indian reservation waters has been through the authority provided by CWA section 518. That section provides that, where a tribe is interested in administering the CWA WQS program, the tribe must (a) become authorized and (b) adopt and submit WQS to EPA for approval. To become authorized, the tribe must seek eligibility for TAS—consistent with the requirements of CWA section 518(e) and 40 CFR 131.8. Section 518(e) of the CWA establishes eligibility criteria for TAS, including requirements that the tribe have a governing body carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers; that the functions to be exercised by the tribe pertain to the management and protection of water resources within the borders of an Indian reservation; and that the tribe be reasonably expected to be capable of carrying out the functions to be exercised in a manner consistent with the terms and purposes of the CWA and applicable regulations. In 1991, EPA issued a final rule to implement CWA section 518(e) for the WQS program. EPA's regulation at 40 CFR 131.8 uses the eligibility criteria contained in CWA section 518 and establishes procedures for EPA Regional Administrators to receive and take action on tribal applications, so they are treated in a similar manner as a state for CWA purposes. To adopt WQS and have them approved by EPA, an authorized tribe must meet the same requirements applicable to states in 40 CFR 131 subparts B and C.
Most of the Indian reservations that are currently covered by CWA-effective WQS involve authorized tribes that have developed and adopted WQS that were approved by EPA (and made effective for CWA purposes). Currently, 53 of the over 300 federally recognized tribes with reservation lands have been authorized to administer a WQS program. Of these authorized tribes, 42 have had their WQS approved by EPA.
Another way to establish CWA-effective WQS for Indian reservation waters is for EPA to promulgate federal WQS on a tribe-by-tribe, reservation-by-reservation basis. EPA has promulgated such federal WQS for one tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation in Washington. See 40 CFR 131.35 (54 FR 28622, July 6, 1989).
For various reasons, many tribes with reservation lands have been unable to apply, or have chosen not to apply, for TAS to administer a WQS program under the CWA. Some tribes have lacked resources to develop WQS to implement a WQS program while other tribes are focusing on addressing other environmental priorities first. Some tribes may be concerned that they cannot meet eligibility requirements, or that applying for program authorization could raise jurisdictional or other legal issues. Some tribes may have adopted water quality standards under tribal law and believe that such water quality standards are adequate to protect their water resources without being approved under the CWA. However, a tribe must obtain TAS and EPA must approve their water quality standards for those standards to be effective for CWA purposes.
Thus, except for the 42 authorized tribes with EPA-approved WQS in effect, the one instance where EPA has promulgated federal WQS (for the Colville Reservation), and six tribes for which EPA has approved states (Washington, South Carolina, and Maine) to adopt WQS on reservations or parts of reservations, there is a gap in water quality protection under the CWA for waters on Indian reservations.
Between 1998 and 2003, EPA consulted widely with tribes, states, and others on the possibility of EPA promulgating certain federal WQS referred to as “core WQS” for Indian country waters without CWA-effective WQS. On January 18, 2001, EPA Administrator Carol Browner signed a proposed rule to promulgate the core WQS under CWA section 303(c). On January 22, 2001, EPA withdrew that proposal to allow additional review. Eventually, EPA Administrator Christine Whitman requested that EPA staff conduct additional outreach and consultation with tribes and states and issue an ANPRM before proposing a core WQS rule. Between 2001 and 2003, EPA began working on the ANPRM to invite comments and views on a variety of broad, possible approaches for establishing federal core WQS for waters in Indian country. Ultimately, EPA did not issue the core WQS ANPRM, nor did it reissue the proposed rule.
EPA is publishing this ANPRM to initiate an informed dialogue with tribes, states, the public, and other stakeholders regarding whether EPA should initiate a rulemaking to establish federal baseline WQS for Indian reservations currently lacking such WQS and, if so, what approach EPA should take regarding key policy issues raised by such a rulemaking.
Federal baseline WQS—which could include designated uses, narrative and numeric criteria, antidegradation requirements, and other WQS policies such as a mixing zone policy, a compliance schedule authorizing
The primary benefit of federal baseline WQS would be to ensure that Indian reservation waters that are without CWA-effective WQS have direct water quality-based protection under the CWA. Many of the CWA's mechanisms for protecting water quality, such as water quality-based effluent limits in NPDES discharge permits, rely on WQS as the foundation for water quality-based decisions. Without applicable WQS, these mechanisms may be limited.
This ANPRM seeks input on key issues related to whether and how to fill the gap of WQS coverage in Indian reservation waters. In preparation for this ANPRM effort and consistent with EPA's Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian tribes, from August through November 2015 and from June through August 2016, EPA consulted and coordinated with officials from more than 130 tribes from around the United States. During that time, EPA received considerable input from tribal officials, most of it positive and supportive of this effort. EPA plans to continue consultation and coordination with tribal officials to address some of the tribes' questions and concerns, most of which center on implementation of any federal baseline WQS.
As mentioned previously, WQS would inform permit decisions and other implementation actions. Recognizing tribes potentially affected by this effort may have limited resources and experience with WQS development, administration, and implementation, EPA would work with the affected tribal government(s) through opportunities for coordination and consultation, as appropriate, in interpreting and applying any final federal baseline WQS rule.
EPA invites comment from all Indian tribes, especially tribes with reservation land that do not have CWA-effective WQS and members of those tribes, on whether establishing federal baseline WQS is an appropriate step in advancing the federal trust responsibility to federally recognized tribes, and enhancing tribal government sovereignty through protection of reservation water quality. EPA is interested also in any input regarding whether there are any concerns that would warrant not including a particular tribe in any final federal baseline WQS rule. While EPA is considering proposing to apply these WQS to all Indian reservations without CWA-effective WQS, in order to meet the goals of the CWA and better protect Indian reservation waters, EPA invites comment on other options.
This ANPRM is part of a broader effort to narrow gaps in CWA-effective WQS coverage in Indian country. On May 16, 2016, EPA revised the interpretation of CWA section 518 to streamline the process for tribes to apply for TAS for CWA regulatory programs, including the WQS program.
EPA expects that this reinterpretation of CWA section 518 will better position tribes to seek TAS, establish their own WQS, and facilitate tribal involvement in the protection of reservation water quality as intended by Congress. To help facilitate the TAS application and WQS adoption processes, EPA is developing new guidance, including creating draft TAS applications and WQS language for use by eligible tribes.
EPA expects to continue to provide such support even if EPA were to promulgate any final federal baseline WQS rule. In addition, as described in sections III.A and III.B of this document, EPA would expect that any final federal baseline WQS that may be put in place would no longer apply to the waters on Indian reservations of a tribe once the tribe has been authorized to administer a CWA WQS program and the tribe's own WQS are in place and approved by EPA.
EPA seeks input on which components of WQS to include in any federal baseline WQS effort—if it determines that such an effort is necessary—to ensure that the water quality of waters on Indian reservations is protected under the CWA. The range of WQS components that could be included are outlined in 40 CFR part 131, and include: Designated uses, narrative and numeric criteria, antidegradation requirements, and other WQS policies such as a mixing zone policy, a compliance schedule authorizing provision, and a WQS variance procedure. While EPA shares the ultimate goal of having WQS tailored to the particular circumstances of each Indian reservation, given the challenges of such an approach in a national federal rule, tailoring opportunities may be limited. However, where flexibility under the CWA and the national WQS regulation exists, any final federal baseline WQS could allow for actions based on such WQS (
EPA invites input on how EPA should approach establishing any federal baseline WQS. For instance, should EPA establish one set of WQS that apply universally to the reservation waters covered by any final federal baseline WQS rule? Alternatively, should EPA pursue establishing federal baseline WQS that offer limited tailoring opportunities by establishing cultural and traditional designated uses that account for unique practices observed by particular tribes (see section III.C of this document), criteria that account for higher fish consumption patterns of particular tribes by establishing human health criteria using a limited range of fish consumption rates (see section III.D
In addition, EPA seeks input on whether and how to make any potential federal baseline WQS consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR part 132. In 1995, EPA published a final rule at 40 CFR part 132, 60 FR 15366 (March 23, 1995) that implements the CWA section 118 requirement for EPA to publish water quality guidance on minimum WQS, including antidegradation policies, and implementation procedures for the Great Lakes System, and that states and authorized tribes adopt WQS, antidegradation policies, and implementation procedures consistent with the guidance. EPA invites comments on whether any potential federal baseline WQS should ensure that decisions for reservation waters in the Great Lakes System (as defined in 40 CFR 132.2) are consistent with the WQS, antidegradation policies, and implementation procedures for the Great Lakes System in 40 CFR part 132, in addition to any final federal baseline WQS, even in cases where tribes have not adopted WQS under CWA sections 303(c) and 518.
In this ANPRM, EPA invites comment on the potential scope of any federal baseline WQS. Such WQS could apply to any or all waters of the United States that are, or after the effective date of a final baseline WQS rule become, located within the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation except: (1) Indian reservation waters for which EPA has promulgated other federal WQS; and (2) Indian reservation waters where EPA has expressly found that a tribe or state has jurisdiction to adopt WQS, and tribal or state WQS are effective under the CWA. Consistent with EPA's long-standing approach, waters of Indian reservations would include waters located within the boundaries of Pueblos as well as lands held in trust by the United States for an Indian tribe even if the land has not been formally designated as a reservation. See,
Indian reservations are a subset of the broader geographic area that comprises Indian country as a whole. Indian country is defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 as: (a) All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation; (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state; and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.
The objective of any federal baseline WQS would be to address the gap in CWA-effective WQS coverage, but it may be appropriate to exclude from any such WQS areas certain waters where other tribal or reservation-specific CWA WQS apply. EPA invites comments on whether federal baseline WQS, if promulgated, should automatically not apply to the following categories of Indian reservation waters:
EPA invites comments on the automatic exclusions described in this section and on whether other automatic exclusions should be considered. In addition, EPA invites comment on whether the application of any exclusion to tribes should be immediate once the Regional Administrator or appropriate delegate approves an authorized tribe's own WQS for CWA purposes.
The first key component of WQS is designated uses. EPA's WQS regulation requires states, and authorized tribes, as well as EPA per 40 CFR 131.22(c), to specify goals and expectations for how each water body is to be used. Designated uses communicate to the public a state or authorized tribe's environmental management objectives and water quality goals for its waters. Clear and accurate designated uses are essential in maintaining the actions necessary to restore and protect water quality and meet the requirements of the CWA. EPA's implementing regulation distinguishes between two broad categories of designated uses: Uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) and a non-101(a)(2) use. The states and authorized tribes must take these uses into consideration when designating waters. EPA invites comments on which designated uses should be established in any federal baseline WQS and whether and how to differentiate designated uses for different waters on Indian reservations that would be covered by such federal baseline WQS.
For the federal baseline WQS effort, EPA is considering including designated uses consistent with the uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the CWA. These uses provide for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water, including the protection of human health when consuming fish, shellfish, and other aquatic life. Since 1983, EPA's WQS regulation has interpreted and implemented the CWA through requirements that WQS protect these CWA section 101(a)(2) uses unless states and authorized tribes, or EPA by extension, demonstrate that those uses are infeasible to attain through a use attainability analysis consistent with EPA's regulation at 40 CFR 131.10, effectively creating a rebuttable presumption of attainability. Where such uses do not appropriately reflect tribe-specific or site-specific conditions, EPA, in consultation with tribes, could subsequently modify, sub-categorize, or remove such designated uses consistent with EPA's WQS requirements. For more information on CWA section 101(a)(2) uses, please refer to EPA's Water Quality Standards Handbook, Chapter 2 Designated Uses.
During the tribal consultation process, many tribes stressed the value and
Accordingly, EPA seeks input on whether, and if so, how to include protection of specific or general cultural and traditional uses explicitly within the scope of the federal baseline WQS. Such a use designation would be accompanied by water quality criteria sufficient to protect the cultural and traditional uses of the tribe's reservation waters. To protect these types of uses, EPA could rely on a combination of numeric and narrative criteria. EPA, in consultation with tribes, could determine at the implementation stage which criteria are applicable to protect the cultural or traditional uses specific to a tribe's reservation waters. Tribal treaty or other reserved rights to fish, hunt, and/or gather on Indian reservations could generally be encompassed by this designated use, to the extent they are not encompassed by the other CWA section 101(a)(2) designated uses (
EPA could also propose to designate a public water supply use for Indian reservation waters covered by the potential federal baseline WQS. A public water supply use is a use specified in CWA section 303(c)(2)(A), and is considered by EPA to be a non-101(a)(2) use, which means that it is unrelated to the protection or propagation of fish, shellfish, wildlife or recreation in or on the water. This designation reflects the requirements in CWA section 303(c) and EPA's implementing regulation at 40 CFR 131.10(a) that when states or authorized tribes, and EPA per 40 CFR 131.22(c), are establishing WQS, the waters' use and value for public water supplies shall be taken into consideration, and that WQS protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water, and serve the purposes of the CWA. Inclusion of a public water supply use designation could help to reinforce EPA's objective to establish baseline human health goals that serve as the basis for CWA protection. Many states have established such a use on large numbers of their water bodies, and EPA anticipates that many tribes will similarly desire such a use to be established on some or most of their waters to help ensure safe drinking water. On the other hand, designating a public water supply use for Indian reservation waters could result in a designation on a water body where such a use is not attainable or otherwise not appropriate. In such instances, EPA could provide a mechanism for the tribe or other parties to provide information for EPA to consider in deciding whether to remove that designation.
EPA is seeking comment on whether the public water supply use is an applicable or suitable use that should be proposed for Indian reservation waters. Options could include not promulgating this use at all for Indian reservation waters, promulgating for all Indian reservation waters, promulgating for some Indian reservation waters, or not promulgating the use for those specific Indian reservation waters identified as unsuitable for such a use prior to finalization of any potential federal baseline WQS rule.
As noted previously, EPA recognizes that it is possible that designated uses set forth in any federal baseline WQS may not ultimately reflect tribe-specific or site-specific conditions or the actual attainability of certain uses. In such circumstances, EPA could subsequently modify, sub-categorize, or remove designated uses that would be established in the potential federal baseline WQS or add additional uses in order to provide limited tailoring of the federal baseline designated uses. This could be accomplished through subsequent federal promulgations consistent with EPA's regulation at 40 CFR part 131.
EPA continues to encourage tribes who are interested in establishing WQS that reflect site-specific, tailored designated uses better suited to particular Indian reservations to obtain TAS for WQS and adopt their own WQS for EPA review and approval.
EPA's current WQS regulation at 40 CFR 131.11 requires adoption of water quality criteria that protect designated uses. Such criteria must be based on sound scientific rationale, must contain sufficient parameters to protect the designated use, and may be expressed in either narrative or numeric form. (See 40 CFR 131.11(a) and (b).) In adopting water quality criteria, states and authorized tribes should establish numeric values based on CWA section 304(a) criteria, CWA section 304(a) criteria modified to reflect site-specific conditions, or other scientifically defensible methods. (See 40 CFR 131.11(b).) As discussed more fully below, CWA section 303(c)(2)(B) requires states and authorized tribes to adopt numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for which EPA has developed CWA section 304(a) recommended criteria. CWA section 304(a)(1) requires EPA to develop and publish, and from time to time update, criteria for water quality accurately reflecting the latest
In considering potential approaches to narrative criteria that could be included in any proposed federal baseline WQS, EPA could look to the Quality Criteria for Water, 1986 (“Gold Book”). EPA could establish a narrative water quality criterion that provides that waters must be free from toxic, radioactive, conventional, non-conventional, deleterious, or other polluting substances in amounts that will prevent attainment of the designated uses specified above. EPA could also establish narrative criteria that provide that all waters must be free from substances attributable to wastewater or other dischargers that: (1) Settle to form objectionable deposits; (2) float as debris, scum, oil, or other matter to form nuisances; (3) produce objectionable color, odor, taste, or turbidity; (4) injure or are toxic or produce adverse physiological responses in humans, animals or plants; and/or, (5) produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic life, including excess algae. Such narrative criteria would be considered when identifying the level of protection sufficient to protect any designated uses established in federal baseline WQS, as outlined in section III.C and consistent with 40 CFR 122.44(d), when making WQS implementation decisions. EPA notes that all states have narrative criteria for the protection of designated uses.
EPA could also include narrative criteria that are specifically intended to protect a designated use that includes water-based activities essential to maintaining cultural and traditional practices that might not be adequately covered by the numeric criteria included in the federal baseline WQS. For example, during consultation with EPA, some tribes expressed an interest in protecting wild rice for consumption and reeds for basket weaving. To help better protect those resources, EPA could include a narrative criterion that provides that water quality associated with certain designated uses be free from pollutants in amounts that prevent the growth of aquatic plants regularly harvested by tribes for cultural or traditional activities.
EPA seeks input on whether to include narrative criteria in any proposed federal baseline WQS and, if so, how best to approach the development of such criteria. Specifically, EPA solicits comment on the inclusion of the narrative criteria discussed above, particularly those intended to protect cultural and traditional uses, as well as other suggestions regarding how to protect a tribe's cultural and traditional practices.
In addition, EPA invites comments on how to establish a narrative criterion specifically intended for the protection of downstream waters. Pursuant to CWA sections 303 and 101(a), the federal regulation at 40 CFR 131.10(b) requires that “In designating uses of a water body and the appropriate criteria for those uses, the [s]tate shall take into consideration the water quality standards of downstream waters and shall ensure that its water quality standards provide for the attainment and maintenance of the water quality standards of downstream waters.” This provision requires states and authorized tribes, and EPA per 40 CFR 131.22(c), to consider and ensure the attainment and maintenance of downstream WQS during the establishment of designated uses and water quality criteria in upstream waters.
EPA's current policy on downstream protection is described in a document entitled,
EPA invites comment on consideration of a downstream protection narrative criterion and seeks input on suggested narrative language, which may be informed through use of the customizable templates. EPA solicits any additional suggestions for other options.
As noted previously, in accordance with 40 CFR 131.11(b), states and authorized tribes, and EPA per 40 CFR 131.22(c), should establish numeric water quality criteria, unless numeric criteria cannot be established. At minimum, and as noted above, pursuant to CWA section 303(c)(2)(B), numeric water quality criteria must be established for the CWA section 307(a)(1) toxic pollutants.
EPA seeks input on whether to establish numeric criteria for any federal baseline WQS for all parameters for which EPA has published CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations, or for some other set of parameters. These include criteria recommendations for both priority toxic pollutants discussed previously as well as many other pollutants and parameters. EPA also invites comments on additional options to consider when establishing numeric criteria, as well as alternative approaches to numeric criteria that could help form the basis for any federal baseline WQS.
For the federal baseline WQS effort, EPA could include numeric criteria for the protection of aquatic life for all pollutants for which EPA has published CWA section 304(a)(1) criteria recommendations. EPA has established recommended aquatic life criteria under CWA section 304(a) for 60 pollutants; for a full listing and description of these criteria see
Regarding criteria for temperature, EPA recognizes that temperature varies significantly, not only nationally but on a regional and local scale. For instance, temperature requirements for a warm water fishery differ from temperature requirements protective of a cold water fishery, and different stages of aquatic life may in turn need different protective WQS. The appropriate temperature WQS to protect aquatic life, therefore, may vary among and within reservations depending on the location of the reservations and the species endemic to the waters. Due to the broad applicability of the potential federal baseline WQS to Indian reservations across the United States, EPA is interested in obtaining comment on recommended approaches for addressing temperature that would be protective of the federally promulgated designated uses included in any potential federal baseline WQS rule. Specifically, EPA solicits comment on using a narrative temperature criterion to account for significant variability in temperature requirements of aquatic species in different regions, different water bodies, and different temperature sensitivities among species to protect and restore the natural thermal regime (spatial, temporal, seasonal, diurnal) that is protective of the most thermally sensitive species. The translation of this temperature narrative criterion would be conducted during CWA implementation (such as permit, assessment, TMDL programs) to protect the specific aquatic life uses at a site.
Similarly, the appropriate criteria for nutrients may vary among and within reservations depending on the location of the reservations. EPA invites comments on whether and how to include numeric and/or narrative nutrient criteria in any potential federal baseline WQS rule given the resource implications in developing appropriate numeric nutrient criteria for such a large number of water bodies over such a broad geographic area. EPA solicits comment on other potential approaches to addressing nutrients in any potential federal baseline WQS rule.
EPA invites comments on the numeric aquatic life criteria that could be included in any potential federal baseline WQS rule. EPA also invites comments on additional options to consider when establishing numeric criteria for the protection of aquatic life, as well as alternative approaches to numeric criteria for the protection of aquatic life that could help form the basis for any federal baseline WQS.
For the federal baseline WQS effort, EPA could include numeric criteria for the protection of human health for all pollutants for which EPA has published CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations. EPA has published recommended human health criteria under CWA section 304(a) for 122 pollutants; for a full listing and description of these criteria, see
To derive criteria for the protection of human health, EPA looks first to its 2000 Human Health Methodology.
As discussed in this section, EPA seeks additional comment on two of the human health criteria input parameters: The cancer risk level and the fish consumption rate, which may vary depending on policy decisions, other applicable federal laws, and data availability.
EPA invites comments on the human health criteria that could be included in any federal baseline WQS rule. EPA also invites comments on alternative approaches to numeric criteria for the protection of human health that could help form the basis for any federal baseline WQS.
EPA's CWA section 304(a) national recommended human health criteria generally assume that carcinogenicity is a “non-threshold phenomenon,” which means that there are no “safe” or “no-effect” levels because even extremely small doses are assumed to cause a finite increase in the incidence of cancer. Therefore, EPA calculates CWA section 304(a) human health criteria for carcinogenic effects as pollutant concentrations corresponding to lifetime increases in the risk of developing cancer.
If the pollutant is not considered to have the potential for causing cancer in
For the federal baseline WQS effort, EPA could calculate human health criteria using the 10
As noted previously, the fish consumption rate is one of the input parameters used to calculate human health criteria. EPA generally recommends selecting a fish consumption rate that is based upon local data and, where sufficient data are available, selecting a fish consumption rate that reflects consumption that is not suppressed by fish availability or concerns about the safety of available fish.
EPA could consider proposing an approach in which it assigns, as a default, human health criteria based on one of the four fish consumption rate options above to all reservations, and allow affected tribal governments, should they so request in comments, to select one of the other three options above for their reservations, based on any applicable rights reserved in treaties or other federal law, and available data and information. In such a case, EPA could promulgate reservation-specific human health criteria based on one of the other three alternative fish consumption rates for such reservation(s). EPA invites comments this approach, as well as comments on additional options to consider when establishing numeric criteria for the protection of human health as part of the federal baseline WQS effort.
During consultation, EPA heard a number of tribes suggest that their own specific survey data be used in calculating the fish consumption rate for human health criteria for a specific reservation. EPA recognizes why such an approach may be attractive to tribes, but has concerns that attempting to provide individual, reservation-specific tailoring opportunities could present a very large workload that could substantially delay proposal and finalization of any federal baseline WQS effort. EPA notes that an alternative approach to fully tailor WQS to a particular reservation is through the TAS and WQS adoption processes. EPA requests comment on these considerations and how they should be addressed in any potential federal baseline WQS regulation.
Maintaining high water quality is critical to supporting economic and community growth and sustainability. Protecting high water quality also provides a margin of safety that will afford the water body increased resilience to potential future stressors, including climate change. While preventing degradation and maintaining a reliable source of clean water involves costs, it can be more effective and efficient than investing in long-term restoration efforts or remedial actions.
Antidegradation requirements are an essential component of WQS and play a critical role in maintaining and protecting the valuable water resources. Although designated uses and criteria are the primary tools used to achieve the goals of the CWA, antidegradation requirements complement these by providing a framework for making decisions regarding changes in water quality. In the 1987 amendments to the CWA, Congress expressly affirmed the principle of antidegradation that is reflected in section 101 of the Act to “
The federal antidegradation regulation requires development and adoption of an “antidegradation policy” and development of “antidegradation implementation methods.” 40 CFR 131.12. The intent of an antidegradation policy is to ensure that in all cases, at a minimum: (1) Water quality necessary to support existing uses is maintained; (2) that where water quality is better than the minimum level necessary to support protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water, that water quality is also maintained and protected unless, through a public process, some lowering of water quality is deemed to be necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the water is located; and (3) waters identified as Outstanding National Resource Waters are protected. For the purposes of EPA's national WQS regulation, “antidegradation policies” must be in rule or other legally binding
The antidegradation policy provisions of any federal baseline WQS rule would have to be consistent with the federal antidegradation policy at 40 CFR 131.12(a).
When identifying high quality (or Tier 2) waters, EPA's initial thinking is that high quality waters could be identified, at the time a lowering of water quality is proposed, on a parameter-by-parameter basis. The national WQS regulation allows states and authorized tribes, and EPA per 40 CFR 131.22(c), to utilize either a parameter-by-parameter basis or a water body-by-water body basis to identify high quality waters (see 40 CFR 131.12(a)(2)(i)). Under the parameter-by parameter approach, states, authorized tribes (and EPA where necessary) determine whether water quality is better than the applicable criteria for a specific parameter or pollutant that would be affected by a new discharge or an increase in an existing discharge of the pollutant. For example, if zinc levels were 20 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and the applicable criterion was 120 mg/L, that water body would be a high quality water for zinc, but might not necessarily be high quality for another parameter. Determining which parameters are at a quality higher than necessary to support the CWA section 101(a)(2) uses is generally made at the time of a permit application for a new discharge or an increase in an existing discharge of the pollutant in question. The parameter-by-parameter basis is straightforward, may result in more Tier 2 protections being afforded to more waters, and lends itself to greater public transparency. EPA seeks input on identifying high quality waters using the parameter-by-parameter basis in any federal baseline WQS rulemaking.
EPA's initial thinking is that water bodies could be identified that are of exceptional recreational, ecological, or other significance (
EPA invites comments on the antidegradation policy outlined in this section and how this could be reflected in any potential federal baseline WQS proposal. EPA also seeks input on any additional options to consider when establishing an antidegradation policy for any potential federal baseline WQS rule.
Consistent with 40 CFR 131.12(b), methods to implement the antidegradation policy must be developed, provide an opportunity for public involvement, and be made available to the public. While antidegradation implementation methods are not required to be contained in regulation, EPA is considering whether to include antidegradation implementation methods as a section of any proposed federal baseline WQS regulation. Because the antidegradation implementation methods would inform permit decisions and other implementation actions, EPA's current view is that for public transparency and for consistency in implementation, any federal baseline WQS effort should include antidegradation implementation methods in regulation. EPA invites comments on whether and how EPA could establish antidegradation implementation methods for any potential federal baseline WQS rulemaking. EPA also seeks input on any additional options to consider when establishing antidegradation implementation methods for any potential federal baseline WQS rule.
The WQS regulation at 40 CFR 131.12 does not specify minimum elements that must be included in antidegradation implementation, however, EPA provided a list of the areas that antidegradation implementation methods would need to address, at a minimum, to be consistent with the national WQS regulation (see 78 FR 58530, September 4, 2013). The list of minimum elements includes: (1) Scope and applicability; (2) Existing uses protection; (3) High quality water protection, including how high quality waters are to be identified, and the analyses and procedures that must be met to determine whether to allow a lowering of high quality waters; (4) Outstanding National Resource Water protection; and (5) Thermal Discharges.
EPA invites comments on the components and contents of the antidegradation implementation methods that could be established to meet the minimum elements, as well as any additional options to consider when establishing antidegradation implementation methods for any potential federal baseline WQS rule.
The national WQS regulation at 40 CFR 131.3(i) defines WQS as “provisions of [s]tate
Wetlands often need specialized WQS because they have different functions and different vulnerability and wetland-specific WQS can provide robust protection for wetlands and their functions. Wetlands exist as ecosystems along the margins (land-sea, land-lake, land-river) and in depressional landscapes (
EPA seeks comment on whether to include specific WQS provisions for the protection of wetlands WQS and, if so, suggestions for language, considerations, and approaches for doing so. Such wetland-specific WQS could include specific designated uses, narrative criteria, and antidegradation requirements developed from EPA's online template, see
As specified in 40 CFR 131.13—131.15, WQS can generally include certain discretionary policies that generally affect how WQS are applied or implemented. Most common among such provisions are those addressing mixing zones, compliance schedules authorizing provisions, and WQS variances. EPA requests input on whether it would be appropriate to include such provisions in any proposed federal baseline WQS regulation and, if so, which provisions and how they should be framed. EPA requests specific comment on inclusion of the following three WQS provisions that EPA is considering to ensure effective implementation of any potential federal baseline WQS proposal.
Should EPA consider inclusion of a provision in the potential federal baseline WQS rule, if promulgated, to allow EPA to establish mixing zones in permitting scenarios on a case-by-case basis after consultation with the appropriate tribal government(s)?
EPA's guidance on mixing zones has been detailed in a number of Agency publications, including EPA's Water Quality Standards Handbook, Chapter 5, General Policies and the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (TSD), March 1991, p33-34, 70-78.
EPA invites comments on whether to include a mixing zone authorizing provision in any potential federal baseline WQS rule, as well as any additional options to consider when establishing a mixing zone authorizing provision.
Should EPA consider inclusion of a compliance schedule authorizing provision in the potential federal baseline WQS rule, if promulgated, to allow compliance schedules to be included in NPDES permits on a case-by-case basis when appropriate after consultation with the appropriate tribal government(s)? Such authorizing provision would allow for compliance schedules to be included in NPDES permits to allow permittees additional time to achieve compliance with effluent limitations implementing the requirements of the CWA and applicable regulations.
By including such a provision, the potential federal baseline WQS would authorize EPA to include a compliance schedule, when appropriate and consistent with 40 CFR 122.47, in a NPDES permit for a new, recommencing or existing discharger to Indian reservation waters of the United States. Where it did so, the discharger to whom a permit was issued or reissued on or after the effective date of the final rule would have to comply with the permit limitations and requirements by the compliance schedule date. A new source or new discharger to Indian reservation waters of the United States would not be eligible for a compliance schedule unless it meets the requirements of 40 CFR 122.47(a)(2). If a new source or new discharger is not granted a compliance schedule, it must comply with any water quality-based effluent limitation in a permit issued on or after the effective date of the final rule upon commencing discharge.
EPA invites comment on the inclusion of a compliance schedule authorizing provision as part of any potential federal baseline WQS rule, as well as any additional options to consider when establishing a compliance schedule authorizing provision.
Should EPA consider inclusion of a provision that would establish a process for EPA to issue WQS variances on a case-by-case basis after consultation with the appropriate tribal government(s)?
A WQS variance is a time-limited designated use and criterion (
Such interim requirements may be adopted based on documentation demonstrating the need for a WQS variance consistent with 40 CFR 131.14(b)(2). Where the underlying designated use and criterion are not being met, WQS variances that reflect a less stringent, time-limited designated use and criterion would allow dischargers additional time to implement adaptive management approaches to improve water quality, but still retain the underlying designated use as a long term goal for the water body. WQS variances can apply to individual dischargers, multiple dischargers, and to entire water bodies or segments.
A WQS variance serves as the basis for the water quality-based effluent limit in NPDES permits. However, the interim requirements do not replace the underlying designated use and criteria
EPA's current regulation allows for adoption of a WQS variance, consistent with 40 CFR 131.14, as part of a state or authorized tribe's WQS. EPA would consider establishing WQS variances to EPA's promulgated federal baseline designated uses and criteria on a case-by-case basis in consultation with tribes. Recognizing such tribes may have limited resources and minimal to no expertise with WQS development and administration, EPA could work in consultation with the affected tribal government(s) to assemble documentation to justify a WQS variance and meet the requirements of 40 CFR 131.14, as appropriate.
EPA invites comments on the inclusion of a WQS variance authorizing provision as outlined in this section, any additional options to consider when establishing a WQS variance provision for any potential federal baseline WQS rule, and on the implementation of the WQS variance provision.
In any final federal baseline WQS rule, EPA could include an explicit section to make clear that a tribe approved for TAS eligibility under CWA section 518 would continue to be able to adopt WQS of its own and submit them to EPA for approval, even after baseline WQS became effective. The tribe would need to apply to EPA for TAS to administer the WQS program. If EPA determines the tribe is eligible to administer the program, using the eligibility criteria and procedures in 40 CFR 131.8, then EPA would review the WQS adopted and submitted by the tribe to EPA. At that point, EPA reviews the submission under the process it regularly uses for tribes and states to ensure they are consistent with the requirements of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulation at 40 CFR part 131, and can approve in whole or in part.
EPA invites comments on the inclusion of a section making clear that tribes, at any time, may seek TAS and, if approved by EPA, submit their own WQS for CWA purposes as outlined in this section.
Under Executive Order 12866, entitled
This ANPRM seeks input on key issues related to whether and how to fill the gap of WQS coverage in Indian reservation waters. In preparation for this ANPRM effort, EPA consulted and coordinated with tribal officials, consistent with EPA's Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian tribes. EPA initiated consultation in the Fall of 2015, from August through November, and then continued consultation in the Summer of 2016, from June to August. During that time, EPA received considerable input from tribal officials, most of it supportive of this effort. The types of questions posed by tribal officials are reflected in this ANPRM for further discussion and public comment. EPA will continue to consult, coordinate, and engage tribes, to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into development of any potential federal baseline WQS rulemaking.
EPA invites comment from tribes on whether establishing federal baseline WQS is an appropriate step in advancing the federal trust responsibility to federally recognized tribes, and enhancing tribal government sovereignty through protection of reservation water quality. EPA is interested in any input regarding whether there are any concerns that would warrant not including a tribe in any final federal baseline WQS rule. While EPA is considering proposing to apply these WQS to all Indian reservations without CWA-effective WQS, in order to meet the goals of the CWA and better protect Indian reservation waters, EPA invites comment on other options.
Environmental protection, Indians—lands, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule, reopening of public comment period.
NMFS hereby reopens the comment period on the proposed
The comment period for the proposed rules that published on June 3, 2016 (81 FR 35701 and 81 FR 36078) are reopened. Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal or received at the appropriate address (see
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0107 for the proposed rule for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay DPSs and identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0157 for the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Andrew Herndon, NMFS, SERO at 727-824-5312; Lynn Lankshear, NMFS, GARFO at 978-282-8473; or Lisa Manning, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources at 301-427-8466.
On June 3, 2016, we, NMFS, published two proposed rules (81 FR 35701and 81 FR 36078) to designate critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended. A 90-day public comment period was provided. Public comments were due by September 1, 2016. NMFS received multiple requests for extension of the comment period. Based on the requests, the comment period for each of these proposed rules is reopened for an additional 15 days to provide further opportunity for public comment.
We are soliciting comments from the public on all aspects of the proposal, including information on the economic, national security, and other relevant impacts. Comments already received during the 90-day comment period and additional comments received during the reopened 15-day comment period will be considered prior to making the final designations.
We propose to designate critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) of Atlantic sturgeon (
16 U.S.C. 1533.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
In accordance with the framework procedure for adjusting management measures of the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf FMP), NMFS proposes to make administrative revisions to the Bycatch Reduction Device Testing Manual (BRD Manual). The BRD Manual contains procedures for the testing and certification of BRDs for use in shrimp trawls in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) and South Atlantic. The proposed changes to the BRD Manual remove outdated or obsolete data collection forms currently appended to the BRD Manual and revise the text to make several procedural steps outlined in the BRD Manual clearer and easier to understand. The intended effect of these revisions is to increase understanding of the BRD certification protocols.
Comments must be received by October 14, 2016.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0109, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Susan Gerhart, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The shrimp fishery in the Gulf EEZ is managed under the Gulf FMP. The Gulf FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf 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 shrimp fishery in the South Atlantic EEZ is managed under the FMP for the Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (South Atlantic FMP). The South Atlantic FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council) and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
Initially, the South Atlantic and Gulf Councils developed separate amendments to their respective FMPs to require the use of certified BRDs, and the South Atlantic Council developed their own BRD Manual, in cooperation with NMFS. The South Atlantic Council established these requirements through Amendment 2 to the South Atlantic FMP in 1997 (62 FR 18536, April 16, 1997). Subsequently, the Gulf Council required, with limited exceptions, the use of certified BRDs through Amendment 9 to the Gulf FMP (63 FR 18139, April 14, 1998). Amendment 9 specified that NMFS would develop a testing protocol for examining the bycatch reduction performance of additional BRD designs. Regulations implementing this initial testing protocol were effective July 13, 1999 (64 FR 37690, July 13, 1999), except for a collection-of-information requirement, which became effective September 29, 1999 (64 FR 52427, September 29, 1999). In 2005, in Amendment 6 to the South Atlantic FMP, the South Atlantic Council transferred authority to NMFS to maintain and revise the BRD Manual, and established a certification criterion identical to the Gulf Council's eastern Gulf criterion (70 FR 73383, December 12, 2005). In 2008, NMFS combined the separate BRD Manuals, and established a single procedural process for testing BRDs, and a single BRD certification criterion for both the Gulf and South Atlantic (73 FR 8219, February 13, 2008). The proposed administrative changes would not change the existing BRD certification criterion.
When the two BRD Manuals were initially developed, no mandatory observer programs existed for Gulf and South Atlantic Council-managed species, thus there was no officially established set of data collection forms. To provide BRD testing applicants with a standardized reporting method, forms and instructions developed and used by NMFS and other researchers during a 1990s Congressionally-mandated Shrimp Trawl Bycatch Research Program were provided with the BRD Manual as Appendices A-I. This family of forms was officially submitted for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act and assigned a control number by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), OMB-0648-0345. Subsequently, mandatory observer programs were established by NMFS for the reef fish fishery and the shrimp fishery in the Gulf, and the various fisheries managed by NMFS' Highly Migratory Species Division. NMFS established a package of observer data collection forms to cover all of these programs with an assigned control number of OMB-0648-0593, and incorporated the family of forms in a standardized Observer Training Manual, including the BRD testing and certification family of forms.
Over time, the various data collection forms used by NMFS have been revised or discarded, making many of the forms in the BRD testing family of forms obsolete (OMB-0648-0345). Currently, only three of the eight original BRD testing data forms in the Observer Training Manual are specific to BRD testing. NMFS intends to incorporate those forms into the OMB-0648-0593 family of forms, and has already discontinued the OMB-0648-0345 family of forms. Therefore, the forms need to be removed as appendices to the BRD Manual and text revised within the BRD Manual to remove references to those forms.
NMFS has also revised some text and instructions in the BRD Manual to make the manual clearer and easier to understand. For example, where forms were referenced, the instructions only stated that “The applicant should submit a completed application form (Appendix A)”; given this action would remove that form from the BRD Manual, the instructions have been revised to reflect the information that the applicant must submit. Other revisions to the BRD Manual include increased consistency of terms; for example, “test” and “trawl” were used interchangeably, as were “trawl” and “net.”
These proposed changes to the BRD Manual were presented to the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils for their consideration and no substantive comments were received from either Council regarding these administrative changes.
These proposed changes to management measures would not add to or change any existing Federal regulations. Therefore, no codified text is associated with these proposed changes to management measures.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Gulf and South Atlantic FMPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed change to management measures, if implemented, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows:
The purpose of this proposed rule is to make non-regulatory administrative revisions to the BRD Manual to simplify test reporting procedures and make the procedural steps outlined in the BRD Manual clearer and easier to understand. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule.
This proposed rule, if implemented, would directly affect entities that apply
The SBA defines a small organization as any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation. This definition includes private educational institutions. The SBA also defines a small governmental jurisdiction as the government of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with a population less than 50,000. For Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
Over the period 2011-2015, a total of 5 separate entities applied for BRD testing. These entities were NMFS, the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation (Foundation), the University of Mississippi, Texas A&M University, and one commercial shrimp fisherman. Individual applications are required for each BRD tested and a total of 26 applications were submitted by these 5 entities over this period. The most applications in any year during this period was 10 (2011), submitted by 3 applicants, and the fewest applications was 1 (2015). NMFS submitted the most applications, 10, followed by the Foundation with 9. The University of Mississippi submitted three applications, and both Texas A&M University (2013) and the commercial shrimp fisherman (2015) submitted a single application.
In addition to these entities, previous applicants have included the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the University of Georgia. The respective state agencies are extensions of their state governments and, as such, exceed the SBA population thresholds for small government entities. Similarly, the public academic institutions are extensions of the respective state government educational systems and, therefore, are similarly classified as large entities. Although no private colleges or universities have applied for BRD testing, these institutions are generally understood to be smaller than public institutions in terms of student population, staff, and operational budgets. As a result, any private educational institutions that might apply for BRD testing would be expected to be a small entity. Any commercial shrimp fisherman that might apply for BRD testing would do so from the perspective of research and not commercial fishing. However, as a commercial shrimp fisherman, this entity would be expected to primarily engage in commercial fishing and not research. Thus, for these entities, the commercial fishing revenue threshold would apply. From 2011 through 2013, the greatest average annual revenue for a single commercial shrimp fishing business in the Gulf was approximately $2.48 million. More recent information is not available, nor is similar information available on commercial shrimp fishermen in the South Atlantic. Nevertheless, because of the low maximum revenue total in the Gulf, it is assumed that any commercial shrimp fisherman that would apply for BRD testing would be a small business entity. In summary, this proposed change to management measures would be expected to directly affect a few small entities, such as not-for-profit institutions, commercial shrimp businesses, and private colleges or universities.
The proposed revisions to the BRD Manual would not directly affect fishery participation, harvest, or the business operation of any small entity. As discussed in the Summary and Supplementary Information sections of this proposed change to management measures, the proposed changes are administrative in nature. This proposed change to management measures would only eliminate test reporting forms in the BRD Manual that are either obsolete or available elsewhere (NMFS standardized Observer Training Manual), revise text and instructions that reference these forms, list the information needed to be reported for BRD testing instead of the specific forms, and improve the consistency of terms used in the BRD Manual. These proposed changes are purely administrative. They would not be expected to affect actual BRD testing or the costs associated with such, but would be expected to improve understanding of the testing process and requirements, and facilitate better circumstances under which BRD research and gear development may proceed. Although subsequent BRD testing could result in future changes in allowable BRDs, the use of which could have direct economic consequences, these would be indirect effects of this proposed rule and outside the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Based on the discussion above, NMFS determines that this proposed change to management measures, if implemented, would not have a significant adverse economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
The BRD Manual published as an appendix to a final rule published in the
The following appendix will publish in the
This Bycatch Reduction Device Testing Manual (BRD Manual) establishes a standardized process for evaluating whether bycatch reduction device (BRD) candidates meet the established bycatch reduction criterion. BRDs that meet the criterion can be certified for use in the EEZ by the southeastern shrimp fishery. Requirements for BRDs used in shrimp trawls in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic can be found in 50 CFR part 622.
The requirement to use BRDs in state waters varies by state. Persons wishing to conduct BRD candidate tests exclusively in state waters do not need to apply to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) for authorization to conduct these tests but should contact the appropriate state officials for authorizations. However, for NOAA Fisheries to certify a BRD candidate for use in Federal waters, tests conducted in state waters must meet the criteria for the operations plan and data collection procedures established in this manual.
Persons interested in evaluating the effectiveness of a BRD candidate to reduce finfish from a shrimp trawl must apply for, receive, and have on board the approved vessel(s) during the test, a Gear Test Authorization (GTA) from the NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office Regional Administrator (RA). To receive a GTA, the applicant must submit the following documentation to the RA: (1) Name, address, and contact information of the applicant; (2) a list of vessels to be used during the sampling program, including the vessels' U.S. Coast Guard documentation numbers or state registration numbers; (3) name, address, and contact information of the vessel owners and/or vessel operators; (4) a brief statement of the purpose and goal of the activity for which the GTA is requested; (5) an operations plan (see Section C below) describing the scope, duration, dates, and location of the test, and methods that will be used to conduct the test; (6) an 8.5 inch x 11 inch (21.6 cm x 27.9 cm) diagram drawn to scale of the BRD candidate design; (7) an 8.5 inch x 11 inch (21.6 cm x 27.9 cm) diagram drawn to scale of the BRD in the shrimp trawl; and (8) a description of the mechanism by which the BRD candidate is expected to exclude finfish.
An applicant requesting an GTA to test an unapproved turtle excluder device (TED) as a BRD (including modifications to a certified TED where the modifications would make the configuration of the TED illegal) must first apply for and obtain from the RA an experimental TED authorization pursuant to 50 CFR 223.207(e)(2). Applicants should contact the Protected Resources Division of NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office for further information. The GTA applicant must include a copy of that authorization with the application.
Incomplete applications will be returned to the applicant along with a letter from the RA indicating what actions the applicant may take to make the application complete.
There is no cost to the applicant for the RA's administrative expenses such as reviewing applications, issuing GTA, evaluating test results, or certifying BRDs. However, all other costs associated with the actual testing activities are the responsibility of the applicant, or any associated sponsor.
If an application for a GTA is denied, the RA will provide a letter of explanation to the applicant, together with relevant recommendations to address the deficiencies that resulted in the denial.
Issuance of a GTA to test a BRD candidate in the South Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico allows the applicant to remove or disable the existing certified BRD in one outboard net (to create a control net), and to place the BRD candidate in another outboard net in lieu of a certified BRD (to create an experimental net). All other trawls under tow during the test must have a certified BRD, unless these nets are specifically exempted in the GTA. All nets under tow during the test must have an approved TED unless operating under an authorization issued pursuant to 50 CFR 223.207(e)(2), whereby the test is being conducted on an experimental TED. The GTA, and experimental TED authorization if applicable, must be on board the vessel(s) while the test is being conducted. The term of the GTA will be 60 days; should circumstances require a longer test period, the applicant may request a 60-day extension.
An operations plan should be submitted with the application describing a method to compare the catches of shrimp and fish in a control
The applicant may choose to conduct a pre-certification test of a prototype BRD candidate. A pre-certification test would be conducted when the intent is to assess the preliminary effectiveness of a prototype BRD candidate under field conditions, and to make modifications to the prototype BRD candidate during the field test. For pre-certification testing, the operations plan must include only a description of the scope, duration, dates, and location of the test, along with a description of methods that will be used to conduct the test. No observer is required for a pre-certification test, but the applicant may choose to use an observer to maintain a written record of the test. The applicant will maintain a written record for both the control and experimental net during each tow. Mandatory data collection is limited to the weight of the shrimp catch and the weight of the total finfish catch in each test net during each tow. Although not required, the applicant may wish to incorporate some or all the certification test requirements listed below.
For a BRD candidate to be considered for certification, the operations plan must be more detailed and address the following topics:
• The primary assumption in assessing the bycatch reduction effectiveness of a BRD candidate during paired net tests is that the inclusion of the BRD candidate in the experimental net is the only factor causing a difference in catch from the control net. Therefore, the nets to be used in the tests must be calibrated (tuned) to minimize, to the extent practicable, any net/side bias in catch efficiency prior to beginning a test series, and tuned again after any gear modification or change. Additional information on tuning shrimp trawls to minimize bias is available from NOAA Fisheries, Harvesting Technology Branch, Mississippi Laboratories, Pascagoula Facility, 3209 Frederic Street, Pascagoula, MS 39567; phone 601-762-4591.
• A standard tow time for a proposed evaluation should be defined. Tow times must be representative of the tow times used by commercial shrimp trawlers. The applicant should indicate what alternatives will be considered should the proposed tow time need adjustment once the test begins.
• A minimum sample size of 30 successful tows using a specific BRD candidate design is required for the statistical analysis described in Section F. No alterations of the BRD candidate design are allowed during a specific test series. If the BRD candidate design is altered, a new test series must be started. If a gear change (
• For tests conducted on twin-rig vessels (one net on the port side and one net on the starboard side), biases that might result from the use of a try net should be minimized. Total fishing times for a try net must be a consistent percentage of the total tow time during each tow made in the test.
• To incorporate any potential net/side bias that remains after the tuning tows (
• Mandatory data to be collected during a test includes: (1) Detailed vessel and gear specifications and (2) pertinent information concerning the location, duration, and catch from individual tows as set forth in forms available from the Science and Research Director (SRD) of the Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Applicants should contact the NOAA Fisheries, Galveston Laboratory, 4700 Avenue U, Galveston, TX 77551; phone 409-766-3500.
• Following each paired tow, the catches from the control and experimental nets must be examined separately. This requires that the catch from each net be kept separate from each other, as well as from the catch taken in other nets fished during that tow. Mandatory data collections include recording the weight of the total catch of each test net (control and experimental nets), and the weight of the total shrimp catch (
• To determine the total finfish catch in each test net, two procedures may be used under different conditions. If the total catch in a net does not fill one standard 1-bushel (ca. 10 gal or 30 L) polyethylene shrimp basket (ca. 70 lb [31.8 kg] of catch), but the tow is otherwise considered successful, data must be collected on the entire catch of the net, and recorded as a “select” sample, indicating that the values represent the total catch of the particular net. If the catch in a net exceeds 70 lb (31.8 kg), a well-mixed sample consisting of one standard 1-bushel [ca. 10 gal] (30 L) polyethylene shrimp basket must be taken from the total catch of the net. The total weight of the sample must be recorded, as well as the weight (and number as applicable) of finfish in aggregate.
• The forms available from the SRD include record keeping opportunities for additional species; collection of this information is optional for certification evaluation purposes. However, applicants testing BRD candidates are encouraged to collect additional information that may be pertinent to addressing bycatch issues in their respective regions. For example, in the western Gulf of Mexico applicants are especially encouraged to collect information on the bycatch of juvenile red snapper. Such data collection would follow the same procedure as sampling the total finfish catch.
The operations plan should address what the applicant will do should it become necessary to deviate from the primary procedures outlined in the operations plan. The plan should describe in detail what will be done to continue the test in a reasonable manner that is consistent with the primary procedures. For example, it may become necessary to alter the pre-selected tow time to adapt to local fishing conditions to successfully complete the test. Prior to issuing a GTA, the RA may consult with evaluation personnel to review the acceptability of these proposed alterations.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that a qualified observer is on board the vessel during the certification tests. Observers may include employees or individuals acting on behalf of NOAA Fisheries, state fishery management agencies, universities, or private industry. Any change in information or testing circumstances, such as replacement of the observer, must be reported to the RA within 30 days. Under 50 CFR 600.746, when any fishing vessel is required to carry an observer as part of a mandatory observer program under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801,
A report on the BRD candidate test results must be submitted by the applicant or associated sponsor before the RA will consider the BRD for certification. The report must contain a comprehensive description of the test, copies of all completed data forms used during the test, and photographs, drawings, and similar material describing the BRD. The report must include a description and explanation of any unanticipated deviations from the operations plan that occurred during the test. These deviations must be described in sufficient detail to allow evaluation and oversight personnel selected by NOAA Fisheries to determine if the tests were continued in a reasonable manner consistent with the approved operations plan procedures. Applicants must provide information on the cost of materials, labor, and installation of the BRD candidate. In addition, any unique or special circumstances of the tests, such as special operational characteristics or fishing techniques, which enhance the BRD's performance, should be described and documented as appropriate.
The RA will determine whether the required reports and supporting materials are sufficient to evaluate the BRD candidate's effectiveness. The determination of sufficiency would be based on whether the applicant adhered to the prescribed testing procedure or provided adequate justification for any deviations from the procedure during the test. If the RA determines that the data are sufficient for evaluation, the BRD candidate will be evaluated to determine if it meets the bycatch reduction criterion. In making a decision, the RA may consult with evaluation and oversight personnel. Based on the data submitted for review, the RA will determine the effectiveness of the BRD candidate, using appropriate statistical procedures such as Bayesian analyses, to determine if the BRD candidate meets the following conditions:
(1) There is at least a 50-percent probability that the true reduction rate of the BRD candidate meets the bycatch reduction criterion (
(2) There is no more than a 10-percent probability that the true reduction rate of the BRD candidate is more than 5 percentage points less than the bycatch reduction criterion.
To be certified for use in the fishery, the BRD candidate will have to satisfy both conditions. The first condition ensures that the observed reduction rate of the BRD candidate has an acceptable level of certainty that it meets the bycatch reduction criterion. The second condition ensures the BRD candidate demonstrates a reasonable degree of certainty the observed reduction rate represents the true reduction rate of the BRD candidate. This determination ensures the operational use of the BRD candidate in the shrimp fishery will, on average, provide a level of bycatch reduction that meets the established bycatch reduction criterion. Interested parties may obtain details regarding the hypothesis testing procedure to be used by contacting NOAA Fisheries, Harvesting Technology Branch, Mississippi Laboratories, Pascagoula Facility, 3209 Frederic Street, Pascagoula, MS 39567; phone 228-762-4591. Following a favorable determination of the certification analysis, the RA will certify the BRD (with any appropriate conditions as indicated by test results) and publish the notice of certification in the
In addition, based on the data provided, if the BRD candidate does not meet the bycatch reduction certification criterion in accordance with the conditions outlined above, the RA may provisionally certify a BRD candidate based on the following condition:
There is at least a 50-percent probability that the true reduction rate of the BRD candidate is no more than 5 percentage points less than the bycatch reduction criterion (
A provisional certification will be effective for 2 years from the date of publication of a notice in the
The RA will advise the applicant, in writing, if a BRD is not certified. This notification will explain why the BRD was not certified and what the applicant may do to either modify the BRD or the testing procedures to improve the chances of having the BRD certified in the future. If certification was denied because of insufficient information, the RA will explain what information is lacking. The applicant must provide the additional information within 60 days from receipt of such notification. If the RA subsequently certifies the BRD, the RA will announce the certification in the
The RA will decertify a BRD whenever NOAA Fisheries determines a BRD no longer satisfies the bycatch reduction criterion. Before determining whether to decertify a BRD, the RA will notify the appropriate Fishery Management Council(s) in writing, and the public will be provided an opportunity to comment on any proposed decertification through a publication of a proposed rule in the
The following section is provided for informational purposes. Sea turtles are listed under the Endangered Species Act as either endangered or threatened. The following procedures apply to incidental take of sea turtles under 50 CFR 223.206(d)(1):
Any sea turtles taken incidentally during the course of fishing or scientific research activities must be handled with due care to prevent injury to live specimens, observed for activity, and returned to the water according to the following procedures:
(A) Sea turtles that are actively moving or determined to be dead (as described in paragraph (B)(4) below) must be released over the stern of the boat. In addition, they must be released only when fishing or scientific collection gear is not in use, when the
(B) Resuscitation must be attempted on sea turtles that are comatose or inactive by:
(1) Placing the turtle on its bottom shell (plastron) so that the turtle is right side up and elevating its hindquarters at least 6 inches (15.2 cm) for a period of 4 to 24 hours. The amount of elevation depends on the size of the turtle; greater elevations are needed for larger turtles. Periodically, rock the turtle gently left to right and right to left by holding the outer edge of the shell (carapace) and lifting one side about 3 inches (7.6 cm) then alternate to the other side. Gently touch the eye and pinch the tail (reflex test) periodically to see if there is a response.
(2) Sea turtles being resuscitated must be shaded and kept damp or moist but under no circumstance be placed into a container holding water. A water-soaked towel placed over the head, carapace, and flippers is the most effective method in keeping a turtle moist.
(3) Sea turtles that revive and become active must be released over the stern of the boat only when fishing or scientific collection gear is not in use, when the engine gears are in neutral position, and in areas where they are unlikely to be recaptured or injured by vessels. Sea turtles that fail to respond to the reflex test or fail to move within 4 hours (up to 24, if possible) must be returned to the water in the same manner as that for actively moving turtles.
(4) A turtle is determined to be dead if the muscles are stiff (rigor mortis) and/or the flesh has begun to rot; otherwise, the turtle is determined to be comatose or inactive and resuscitation attempts are necessary.
Any sea turtle so taken must not be consumed, sold, landed, offloaded, transshipped, or kept below deck.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of the public meeting of the Board for International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD). The meeting will be held from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. CDT on Wednesday, October 12, 2016, at the Salon D, Des Moines Marriott Hotel, 700 Grand Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50309. The meeting will be streamed live on the Internet. The link to the global live stream is on BIFAD's home page:
The central theme of this public meeting will be
Starting at 8:45 a.m., Beth Dunford, Deputy Coordinator for Development for Feed the Future and Assistant to the Administrator, USAID Bureau for Food Security, will provide an update on Feed the Future and the recently released report, A Food-Secure 2030. Then Emily Hogue, Team Lead for Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Team Lead, USAID Bureau for Food Security will present on the Feed the Future accountability framework, progress, and learning.
The panel respondents will begin, following a short break, at 10:30 a.m. CDT. Presenters on this panel are Pietro Gennari, Director, Statistics Division, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Richard Caldwell, Senior Program Officer, Monitoring Learning and Evaluation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Paul Winters, Director of the Research and Impact Assessment Division, International Fund for Agricultural Development, and David Ameyaw, Director, Monitoring and Evaluation, Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa.
At 11:30 a.m. CDT, Chairman Deaton will moderate a half-hour public comment period. At 12:00 p.m., Dr. Deaton will make closing remarks and adjourn the public meeting.
Those wishing to attend the meeting or obtain additional information about BIFAD should contact Clara Cohen, Designated Federal Officer for BIFAD in the Bureau for Food Security at USAID. Interested persons may write to her in care of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Ronald Reagan Building, Bureau for Food Security, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20523-2110 or telephone her at (202) 712-0119.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to TREASURE8 LLC of SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 14/244,448, entitled “NOVEL INFRARED DRY BLANCHING, INFRARED BLANCHING, AND INFRARED DRYING TECHNOLOGIES FOR FOOD PROCESSING,” filed on April 3, 2014.
Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2016.
Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.
Mojdeh Bahar of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.
The Federal Government's patent rights in THIS INVENTION are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license THIS INVENTION as TREASURE8 LLC of SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Gallatin Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Bozeman, Montana. 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 meeting will be held on October 13, 2016, from 12:30 p.m.-4:30 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 Custer Gallatin Supervisor's Office, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 10 East Babcock Street, Bozeman, Montana.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Karen Tuscano, RAC Coordinator by phone at 406-587-6784, 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 review and recommend 2016 project proposals to the Designated Federal Officer.
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 October 1, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Karen Tuscano, RAC Coordinator, Custer Gallatin National Forest Supervisor's Office, 10 East Babcock Street, Bozeman, Montana 59715; or by email to
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Kentucky Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Friday October 21, 2016, at 12 p.m. EST for the purpose of discussing potential projects.
The meeting will be held on Friday October 21, 2016 12:00 p.m. EST.
The meeting will be by teleconference. Toll-free call-in number: 888-602-6363, conference ID: 6951138.
Jeff Hinton at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-602-6363, conference ID: 6951138. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by October 19, 2016. Written comments may be mailed to the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA 30303. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (404) 562-7005, or emailed to Regional Director, Jeffrey Hinton at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment.
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) determines that welded stainless pressure pipe (“WSPP”) from India is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015. The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.
Effective September 29, 2016.
James Terpstra or Alex Rosen, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3965, or (202) 482-7814, respectively.
On May 10, 2016, the Department published the
The product covered by this investigation is circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches in outside diameter, from India. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
We preliminarily determined to collapse Sunrise with its affiliate Sun Mark and to treat these two companies as a single entity.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is incorporated by reference and hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the
In making this final determination, the Department relied, in part, on facts available with regard to sales of defective or sub-prime merchandise in the home market by Steamline.
Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for both respondents since the
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters or producers individually examined, excluding any rates that are zero,
The Department determines that the final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
We will disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the public announcement of this final determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of WSPP from India, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 10, 2016, the date of publication in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the export price (“EP”) or constructed export price (“CEP”), as indicated in the chart above. Consistent with our longstanding practice, where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the amount by which the NV exceeds the U.S. price, less the amount of the countervailing duty determined to constitute any export subsidies. Therefore, in the event that a countervailing duty order is issued and suspension of liquidation is resumed in the companion countervailing duty investigation on WSPP from India, the Department will instruct CBP to require cash deposits adjusted by the amount of export subsidies, as appropriate. These adjustments are reflected in the final column of the rate chart, above.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in part, section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires that the ITC make its final determination whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of WSPP from India no later than 45 days
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches in outside diameter. References to size are in nominal inches and include all products within tolerances allowed by pipe specifications. This merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) A-312 or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. ASTM A-358 products are only included when they are produced to meet ASTM A-312 or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications.
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are: (1) Welded stainless mechanical tubing, meeting ASTM A-554 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications; (2) boiler, heat exchanger, superheater, refining furnace, feedwater heater, and condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A-249, ASTM A-688 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications; and (3) specialized tubing, meeting ASTM A-269, ASTM A-270 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications.
The subject imports are normally classified in subheadings 7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 7306.40.5064, and 7306.40.5085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). They may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7306.40.1010, 7306.40.1015, 7306.40.5042, 7306.40.5044, 7306.40.5080, and 7306.40.5090. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting.
The United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board (Board) will hold an open meeting via teleconference on Thursday, October 13, 2016. The Board was re-chartered in August 2015 and advises the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the U.S. travel and tourism industry. The purpose of the meeting is for Board members to deliberate on proposed recommendations related to travel security and the customer experience, visa facilitation, and the collection of international visitation data to the United States. The final agenda will be posted on the Department of Commerce Web site for the Board at
Thursday, October 13, 2016, 2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. EDT. The deadline for members of the public to register, including requests to make comments during the meeting and for auxiliary aids, or to submit written comments for dissemination prior to the meeting, is 5:00 p.m. EDT on October 6, 2016.
The meeting will be held by conference call. The call-in number and passcode will be provided by email to registrants. Requests to register (including to speak or for auxiliary aids) and any written comments should be submitted to: U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230,
Li Zhou, the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 202-482-4501, email:
In addition, any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the Board's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to Li Zhou at the contact information indicated above. To be considered during the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Thursday, October 6, to ensure transmission to the Board prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date and time will be distributed to the members but may not be considered on the call. Copies of Board meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice and request for nominations from state, local, and municipal governments to the trade promotion coordinating committee state and federal export promotion coordination working group.
The Secretary of Commerce, as Chair of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC), announces the establishment of the State and Federal Export Promotion Coordination Working Group as a subcommittee of the TPCC. The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (the Act) requires the President to establish this Working Group as a subcommittee of the TPCC to identify issues related to the coordination of Federal resources relating to export promotion and export financing with such resources provided by State and local governments.
Nominations for the Working Group must be received electronically on or before 5:00 p.m. (ET) on October 24, 2016.
Patrick Kirwan, Director, Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee Secretariat, Room 31027, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 202-482-5455, email:
The TPCC is an interagency group mandated by Congress (15 U.S.C. 4727) and chaired by the Secretary of Commerce. It was established to provide a unifying framework to coordinate the export promotion and financing activities of the U.S. Government, as well as to develop a government wide strategic plan for carrying out Federal export promotion and export financing programs. The United States does not have a single agency or government department responsible for creating a unified approach to governing export promotion; instead, 20 different departments and agencies approach exports with differing mandates. The TPCC serves as the coordinating body designed to ensure that these agencies and departments act together and work to implement the Administration's export promotion agenda, through periodic principals meetings and more frequent working group meetings on a variety of subjects.
The TPCC statutory mandate includes:
(1) Coordinate the development of the trade promotion policies and programs of the United States Government;
(2) provide a central source of information for the business community on Federal export promotion and export financing programs;
(3) coordinate official trade promotion efforts to ensure better delivery of services to United States businesses, including: (a) Information and counseling on United States export promotion and export financing programs and opportunities in foreign markets; (b) representation of United States business interests abroad; and (c) assistance with foreign business contacts and projects;
(4) prevent unnecessary duplication in Federal export promotion and export financing activities; and
(5) assess the appropriate levels and allocation of resources among agencies in support of export promotion and export financing and provide recommendations to the President based on its assessment.
In carrying out that mandate, the TPCC develops and implements an annual government wide strategic plan for Federal trade promotion efforts. The annual strategic plan establishes a set of priorities for Federal activities in support of U.S. exports; explains the rationale for the priorities; reviews current Federal programs designed to promote U.S. exports in light of those priorities; identifies areas of overlap and duplication and proposes means of eliminating them; proposes an annual unified Federal trade promotion budget to the President; reviews efforts by the States to promote exports and proposes means of developing cooperation between State and Federal efforts; and reflects certain recommendations regarding the promotion of travel and tourism exports as appropriate.
For additional information, including the list of TPCC member departments and agencies, please see
Section 504(a) of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (“Act”), amended the Export Enhancement Act of 1988 to add a new section 2313A. Section 2313A notes that U.S. policy is to promote exports as an opportunity for small businesses, and in exercising their powers and functions to advance that policy, all Federal agencies shall work constructively with State and local agencies engaged in export promotion and export financing activities. Section 2313A directs the President to establish the State and Federal Export Promotion Coordination Working Group (“Working Group”) under the TPCC with the purposes to:
(1) Identify issues related to the coordination of Federal resources relating to export promotion and export financing with such resources provided by State and local governments;
(2) identify ways to improve coordination with respect to export promotion and export financing activities through the TPCC annual strategic plan;
(3) develop a strategy for improving coordination of Federal and State resources relating to export promotion and export financing, including methods to eliminate duplication of effort and overlapping functions; and
(4) develop a strategic plan for considering and implementing the suggestions of the Working Group as part of the TPCC annual strategic plan.
The President issued Executive Order No. 13733, Delegation of Certain Authorities and Assignment of Certain Functions under the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, on July 22, 2016, assigning to the Secretary of Commerce the function under Section 2313A(b) of establishing the Working Group. In the Executive Order, the President further directed that, in carrying out its functions, the State and Federal Export Promotion Coordination Working Group shall also coordinate with local and municipal governments representing regionally diverse areas.
The Secretary of Commerce shall select the members of the Working Group, who shall include representatives from State trade agencies and local and municipal governments representing regionally diverse areas and representatives of the federal departments and agencies that are represented on the TPCC. Representatives from State trade agencies must be: (1) Elected officers of a State, or (2) State employees designated by an elected State officer to represent the State trade agency with authority to act on his or her behalf. Representatives from local and municipal governments must be: (1) Elected officers or (2) local or municipal employees designated by an elected officer to represent the local and municipal government with authority to act on his or her behalf.
Because the Working Group will be an intergovernmental committee composed wholly of full-time or part-time Federal Government officers or employees, State government elected officers or their designees, and local and municipal elected officials or their designees, all of whom will be acting in their official capacities solely to exchange views, information, or advice relating to the management and implementation of Federal programs established by statute that explicitly share intergovernmental responsibilities and administration, the Working Group is not covered by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.
Members appointed as representatives from State trade agencies and local and municipal governments will not receive any Federal compensation for their services and will not be reimbursed for travel expenses. Meetings will be held in person and/or via teleconference. The TPCC will make every effort to use technology to allow for remote participation in meetings, but there will be times when in-person meetings will be necessary. The TPCC will strive to provide members of the Working Group notice of meetings at least 15 calendar days in advance.
The TPCC Secretariat seeks nominations for representatives from State trade agencies and local and municipal governments to the Working Group. For purposes of this notice, a “State trade agency” is the lead official governmental trade promotion agency for a State, and includes separately established trade agencies as well as trade offices within a State agency or department or the Office of the Governor. A “local or municipal government” includes, but is not limited to, town, city, and county governments. The TPCC seeks representation of regionally diverse areas.
Qualified individuals may self-nominate or be nominated by a senior level State government or local or municipal government official. To be considered, nominators should submit the following information:
(1) Name, title, and relevant contact information (including phone and email address) for the nominee, the state trade agency that the nominee would represent or the local or municipal government the nominee would represent;
(2) A resume or short biography of the nominee, including professional and academic credentials.
(3) A statement of the nominee's role in state, local, or municipal export promotion activities.
Should more information be needed, TPCC staff will contact the nominee. If nominees are not an elected official, a letter may be requested from an elected official that indicates the nominee has been designated to participate in the Working Group on his or her behalf.
Nominators should submit the above information via electronic transmission to
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of welded stainless pressure pipe from India. For information on the subsidy rates, see the “Final Determination” section of this notice. The period of investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.
Effective September 29, 2016.
Amanda Mallott at 202-482-6430, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
The Department published the
The merchandise covered by this investigation is circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches in outside diameter, from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
The Department is conducting this countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we determine that there is a subsidy,
The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix I.
In making this final determination, the Department relied, in part, on facts available with regard to specificity and financial contribution of the electricity duty rebate provided to Steamline Industries Limited (“Steamline”), as well as an adjustment to Steamline's reported total sales value and total export sales value.
Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, we made certain changes to the subsidy program rate calculations since the
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we calculated an individual rate for each producer/exporter of the subject merchandise individually investigated. In accordance with section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for companies not individually examined, we apply an “all-others” rate, which is normally calculated by weighting the subsidy rates of the companies that the Department individually investigated by those companies' exports of the subject merchandise to the United States. Under section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, the all-others rate should exclude zero and
We intend to disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations performed for this final determination within five days of the date of public announcement of our final determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As a result of our
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order and will reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act and will require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
In the event the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches in outside diameter. References to size are in nominal inches and include all products within tolerances allowed by pipe specifications. This merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) A-312 or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. ASTM A-358 products are only included when they are produced to meet ASTM A-312 or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications.
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are: (1) Welded stainless mechanical tubing, meeting ASTM A-554 or comparable omestic or foreign specifications; (2) boiler, heat exchanger, superheater, refining furnace, feedwater heater, and condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A-249, ASTM A-688 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications; and (3) specialized tubing, meeting ASTM A-269, ASTM A-270 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications.
The subject imports are normally classified in subheadings 7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 7306.40.5064, and 7306.40.5085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). They may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7306.40.1010, 7306.40.1015, 7306.40.5042, 7306.40.5044, 7306.40.5080, and 7306.40.5090. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Antarctic Ecosystem Research Division, La Jolla, California, (Responsible Party: George Watters, Ph.D., Director), has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on marine mammals in the Antarctic.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before October 31, 2016.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Sara Young or Amy Sloan, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant requests a five-year permit to take Antarctic fur seals
The applicant requests annual capture of: 200 Antarctic fur seal adults and juveniles; 600 Antarctic fur seal pups; 50 leopard seal adults and juveniles; 50 southern elephant seal adults and juveniles; 100 southern elephant seal pups; 30 Weddell seal adults and juveniles; and 20 Weddell seal pups. Research on captured animals would include tissue sampling, attachment of scientific instruments, application of marks (flipper tags, hair bleach or dye), morphometric measurement, tooth extraction, and stomach content sampling. An additional 23,000 Antarctic fur seals, 1,100 southern elephant seals, 100 crabeater seals, 100 leopard seals, 200 Weddell seals, and 5 Ross seals would be taken annually by harassment during aerial and ground surveys, including behavioral observations and photo-identification. The applicant has requested an annual incidental mortality allowance of: 3 Antarctic fur seal adults or juveniles; 5 Antarctic fur seal pups; 2 leopard seal adults or juveniles; 2 southern elephant seal adults or juveniles; 2 southern elephant seal pups; 2 Weddell seal adults or juveniles; and 2 Weddell seal pups.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for nominations.
As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Secretary of Commerce established three independent regional scientific review groups (SRGs) to provide advice on a range of marine mammal science and management issues. NMFS has conducted a membership review of the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific SRGs, and is soliciting nominations for new members to fill vacancies and gaps in expertise. Nominees should possess demonstrable expertise in the areas specified in this notice, be able to conduct thorough scientific reviews of marine mammal science, and be able to fulfill the necessary time commitments associated with a thorough review of documents and to attend one annual meeting.
Nominations must be received by October 31, 2016.
Nominations can be emailed to
Shannon Bettridge, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8402,
Section 117(d) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1386(d)) directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish three independent regional SRGs to advise the Secretary (authority delegated to NMFS). The Alaska SRG advises on marine mammals that occur in waters off Alaska that are under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Pacific SRG advises on marine mammals that occur in waters off the U.S. West Coast, Hawaiian Islands, and the U.S. Territories in the Central and Western Pacific that are under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Atlantic SRG advises on marine mammals that occur in waters off the Atlantic coast, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Territories in the Caribbean that are under the jurisdiction of the United States.
SRGs members are highly qualified individuals with expertise in marine mammal biology and ecology, population dynamics and modeling, commercial fishing technology and practices, and stocks taken under section 101(b) of the MMPA. The SRGs provide expert reviews of draft marine mammal stock assessment reports and other information related to the matters identified in section 117(d)(1) of the MMPA, including:
A. Population estimates and the population status and trends of marine mammal stocks;
B. Uncertainties and research needed regarding stock separation, abundance, or trends, and factors affecting the distribution, size, or productivity of the stock;
C. Uncertainties and research needed regarding the species, number, ages, gender, and reproductive status of marine mammals;
D. Research needed to identify modifications in fishing gear and practices likely to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in commercial fishing operations;
E. The actual, expected, or potential impacts of habitat destruction, including marine pollution and natural environmental change, on specific marine mammal species or stocks, and for strategic stocks, appropriate conservation or management measures to alleviate any such impacts; and
F. Any other issue which the Secretary or the groups consider appropriate.
SRG members collectively serve as independent advisors to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and provide their expert review and recommendations through participation in the SRG. Members attend annual meetings and undertake activities as independent persons providing expertise in their subject areas. Members are not appointed as representatives of professional organizations or particular stakeholder groups, including government entities, and are not permitted to represent or
NMFS annually reviews the expertise available on the SRG and identify gaps in the expertise that is needed to provide advice pursuant to section 117(d) of the MMPA. In conducting the reviews, NMFS will attempt to achieve, to the maximum extent practicable, a balanced representation of viewpoints among the individuals on each SRG.
For the Atlantic SRG (including waters off the Atlantic coast, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Territories in the Caribbean), NMFS seeks individuals with expertise in one or more of the following areas: Ecological statistics, with emphasis in line-transect theory, abundance estimation, trend analysis, and/or marine mammal bycatch estimation; marine mammal health; fisheries gear and technologies; and pinnipeds.
For the Pacific SRG (including waters off the Pacific coast, Hawaiian Islands and the U.S. Territories in the Central and Western Pacific), NMFS seeks individuals with expertise in one or more of the following areas: Bycatch estimation; quantitative ecology, population dynamics, modeling, and statistics; fishing gear/techniques, particularly for Hawaii and Pacific Islands fisheries; genetics and/or other methods of identifying marine mammal population structure; passive acoustics; abundance estimation, especially distance sampling and mark-recapture methods; and southern sea otters.
For the Alaska SRG, NMFS seeks individuals with expertise in one or more of the following areas: Genetics/population structure; quantitative ecology, modeling, and population dynamics; acoustics; fishing gear and practices; anthropogenic impacts; and ice-associated or Arctic species.
Nominations for new members should be sent to (see
When reviewing nominations, NMFS will consider the following criteria:
(1) Ability to make time available for the purposes of the SRG;
(2) Knowledge of the species (or closely related species) of marine mammals in the SRG's region;
(3) Scientific or technical achievement in a relevant discipline, particularly the areas of expertise identified above, to be considered an expert peer reviewer for the topic;
(4) Demonstrated experience working effectively on teams;
(5) Expertise relevant to current and expected needs of the SRG, in particular, expertise required to provide adequate review and knowledgeable feedback on current or developing stock assessment issues, techniques, etc. In practice, this means that each member should have expertise in more than one topic as the species and scientific issues discussed in SRG meetings are diverse; and
(6) No conflict of interest with respect to their duties as a member of the SRG.
An SRG member cannot be a registered Federal lobbyist. Membership is voluntary, and except for reimbursable travel and related expenses, service is without pay. The term of service for SRG members is three years and members may serve up to three consecutive terms if reappointed.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The SEDAR 49 assessment of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico Data-Limited Species will consist of a Data Workshop; a series of Assessment Webinars; and a Review Workshop, to view the agenda.
The SEDAR 49 Review Workshop will begin at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, November 1, 2016, and end at 6 p.m. on Thursday, November 3, 2016, to view the agenda see
Julie Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; phone 843-571-4366 or toll free 866-SAFMC-10; FAX 843-769-4520; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion in the Review Workshop agenda are as follows:
1. The Review Panel participants will review the stock assessment reports to determine if they are scientifically sound.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Bureau Official Approval.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is publishing a notice pursuant to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act concerning the new Uniform Residential Loan Application and the collection of expanded Home Mortgage Disclosure Act information about ethnicity and race in 2017.
This official approval is issued September 23, 2016. Entities may rely on part III of this Bureau official approval beginning January 1, 2017.
James Wylie, Counsel, Office of Regulations, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, at 202-435-7700.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) administers the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691,
The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and the Federal National Mortgage Association (collectively, the Enterprises), under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), issued a revised and redesigned Uniform Residential Loan Application on August 23, 2016, included as an attachment to this notice (2016 URLA).
A version of the URLA dated January 2004 is included in appendix B to Regulation B as a model form. Appendix B provides that the use of model forms included in appendix B is optional under Regulation B but that, if a creditor uses an appropriate appendix B model form, or modifies a form in accordance with instructions provided in appendix B, that creditor shall be deemed to be acting in compliance with § 1002.5(b) through (d). Regulation B comment appendix B-1 provides that a previous version of the URLA, dated October 1992, may be used by creditors without violating Regulation B.
This Bureau official approval is being issued separately from, and without amending, the official interpretations to Regulation B contained in Supplement I to Regulation B. The Bureau will consider whether to address the treatment of outdated versions of the URLA in appendix B and Supplement I to Regulation B at a later date.
Regulation B § 1002.5(b) provides rules concerning requests for information about race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. Section 1002.5(c) provides rules concerning requests for information about a spouse or former spouse. Section 1002.5(d) provides rules concerning requests for information regarding marital status; income from alimony, child support, or separate maintenance; and childbearing or childrearing. Bureau staff has determined that the relevant language in the 2016 URLA is in compliance with these regulatory provisions. A creditor's use of the 2016 URLA is not required under Regulation B. However, a creditor that uses the 2016 URLA without any modification that would violate § 1002.5(b) through (d) would act in compliance with § 1002.5(b) through (d). The issuance of this Bureau official approval has been duly authorized by the Director of the Bureau and provides the protection afforded under section 706(e) of ECOA.
This part of this Bureau official approval addresses collection of information concerning the ethnicity and race of applicants in conformity with Regulation B from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.
With some exceptions, Regulation B § 1002.5(b) generally prohibits a creditor from inquiring about the race, color, religion, national origin, or sex of an applicant or any other person in connection with a credit transaction. Regulation B § 1002.5(a)(2) provides an exception to that prohibition for information, including information about ethnicity and race, for monitoring purposes that creditors are required to request for certain dwelling-secured loans under § 1002.13, and for information required by a regulation, order, or agreement issued by or entered into with a court or an enforcement
Regulation C, as amended by the final rule published in the
The Bureau believes there will likely be significant benefits to permitting creditors to request, before January 1, 2018, that applicants self-identify using the disaggregated ethnic and racial categories under amended Regulation C, using the processes and instructions provided in amended appendix B to Regulation C. The Bureau believes such authorization may provide creditors time to begin to implement the regulatory changes and improve their compliance processes before the new requirement becomes effective, and therefore mandatory, on January 1, 2018. Allowing for this increased implementation period will reduce compliance burden and further the purposes of HMDA and Regulation C. Some creditors may be ready to permit applicants to self-identify using disaggregated ethnic and racial categories before January 1, 2018, but could not fully transition to new forms and processes because of the prohibition in Regulation B § 1002.5(b). It may help industry adoption of those standards to allow creditors to permit applicants to self-identify using disaggregated ethnic and racial categories before January 1, 2018. Moreover, permitting applicants to self-identify using the disaggregated ethnic and racial categories as instructed in appendix B to Regulation C, as amended by the 2015 HMDA final rule, before the effective date of that rule is consistent with the purposes of ECOA and Regulation B and does not pose a risk of harm to consumers. As the Bureau explained in the 2015 HMDA final rule, the Bureau believes that, among other things, disaggregation will encourage self-reporting by applicants by offering, as the Census does, categories that promote self-identification.
At any time from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017, a creditor may, at its option, permit applicants to self-identify using disaggregated ethnic and racial categories as instructed in appendix B to Regulation C, as amended by the 2015 HMDA final rule. During this period, a creditor adopting the practice of permitting applicants to self-identify using disaggregated ethnic and racial categories as instructed in appendix B to Regulation C, as amended by the 2015 HMDA final rule, shall not be deemed to violate Regulation B § 1002.5(b). During this period, a creditor adopting the practice of permitting applicants to self-identify using disaggregated ethnic and racial categories as instructed in appendix B to Regulation C, as amended by the 2015 HMDA final rule, shall also be deemed to be in compliance with Regulation B § 1002.13(a)(i) even though applicants are asked to self-identify using categories other than those explicitly provided in that section. The issuance of this Bureau official approval has been duly authorized by the Director of the Bureau and provides the protection afforded under section 706(e) of ECOA.
For purposes of submitting HMDA data for applications received from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017, and on which final action is taken during the 2017 calendar year, a financial institution shall submit the information concerning ethnicity and race pursuant to § 1003.4(a)(10), using only aggregate categories and the codes provided in the filing instructions guide for HMDA data collected in 2017, even if the financial institution has permitted applicants to self-identify using disaggregated categories pursuant to this Bureau official approval.
For purposes of submitting HMDA data for applications received on or after January 1, 2017, and before January 1, 2018, and on which final action is taken on or after January 1, 2018, the financial institution, at its option, may submit the information concerning ethnicity and race under § 1003.4(a)(10)(i) using disaggregated categories if the applicant provided such information instead of using the transition rule in Regulation C comment 4(a)(10)(i)-2 as adopted by the 2015 HMDA final rule, or it may submit the information in accordance with that transition rule.
This Bureau official approval is an approval or interpretation exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled the AmeriCorps NCCC Medical and Mental Health Information Form for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Tara Lind-Zajac, at 202-606-6702 or email to
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, within October 31, 2016.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
(1)
(2)
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
The Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community Service gives notice of the following meeting:
Monday, October 3, 2016, 3:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m. (ET).
Corporation for National and Community Service, 250 E Street SW., Suite 4026, Washington, DC 20525 (Please go to the first floor lobby reception area for escort).
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-847-7598 conference call access code number 7964995. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and CNCS will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Replays are generally available one hour after a call ends. The toll-free phone number for the replay is 866-367-6912. TTY: 800-833-3722. The end replay date is November 3, 2016 at 10:59 p.m. (CT).
Open.
The Corporation for National and Community Service provides reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. Anyone who needs an interpreter or other accommodation should notify David Premo at
Dave Premo, Program Support Specialist, Corporation for National and Community Service, 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20525. Phone: 202-606-6717. Fax: 202-606-3460. TTY: 800-833-3722. Email:
Department of Defense.
Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the charter for the Board of Visitors to the U.S. Air Force Academy (“the Board”).
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.
This committee's charter is being renewed in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(a). The charter and contact information for the Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be obtained at
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 31, 2016.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 28, 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 Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
On September 23, 2016, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL16-110-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether section 34.6 of the Open Access Transmission Tariff of Southwest Power Pool, Inc. may be unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL16-110-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL16-110-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Before Commissioners: Norman C. Bay, Chairman; Cheryl A. LaFleur, Tony Clark, and Colette D. Honorable
1. On May 26, 2016, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) submitted a petition seeking approval of proposed Reliability Standards IRO-018-1 (Reliability Coordinator Real-time Reliability Monitoring and Analysis Capabilities) and TOP-010-1 (Real-time Reliability Monitoring and Analysis Capabilities). As discussed in this order, the Commission approves Reliability Standards IRO-018-1 and TOP-010-1 and NERC's proposed implementation plan, violation severity levels and, with the exceptions identified below, violation risk factors.
2. The Commission, as discussed below, directs NERC to submit a compliance filing within 60 days of the date of this order to modify the violation risk factor designations for Requirement R1 of Reliability Standard IRO-018-1 and Requirements R1 and R2 of Reliability Standard TOP-010-1 to “high.”
3. The Commission certified NERC as the Electric Reliability Organization, as defined in section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
4. NERC contends that the proposed Reliability Standards address: (1) The directives in Order No. 693 requiring operators to have a minimum set of capabilities; (2) recommendations contained in the NERC Operating Committee Real-time Tools Best
5. NERC states that, while existing Reliability Standards contain requirements to perform monitoring and real-time assessments, proposed Reliability Standards IRO-018-1 and TOP-010-1 build on these requirements to support effective situational awareness. NERC explains that the proposed Reliability Standards accomplish this by requiring applicable entities to: (1) Provide notification to operators of real-time monitoring alarm failures; (2) provide operators with indications of the quality of information being provided by their monitoring and analysis capabilities; and (3) address deficiencies in the quality of information being provided by their monitoring and analysis capabilities.
6. Specifically, NERC states that proposed Reliability Standards IRO-018-1, Requirement R3 and TOP-010-1, Requirement R4 address situational awareness objectives by providing for operator awareness when key alarming tools are not performing as intended. Proposed Reliability Standard IRO-018-1, Requirement R3 requires reliability coordinators to have an alarm process monitor that provides notification to system operators when the failure of a real-time monitoring alarm processor has occurred. Proposed Reliability Standard TOP-010-1, Requirement R4 contains an identical requirement applicable to transmission operators and balancing authorities.
7. In addition, NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard IRO-018-1, Requirement R1 obligates each reliability coordinator to implement an operating process or procedure to address the quality of the real-time data necessary to perform its real-time monitoring and real-time assessments. Proposed Reliability Standard TOP-010-1, Requirement R1 contains identical requirements applicable to transmission operators; Requirement R2 requires the same of balancing authorities.
8. Further, NERC explains that Reliability Standards IRO-018-1, Requirement R2 and TOP-010-1, Requirement R3 ensure that reliability coordinators and transmission operators, respectively, implement operating processes or procedures to address issues related to the quality of the analysis used in real-time assessments.
9. NERC submits that proposed Reliability Standards IRO-018-1 and TOP-010-1, together with other currently-effective and Commission-approved IRO and TOP Reliability Standards address the relevant reliability concerns underlying the Commission's Order No. 693 directives requiring operators to have a minimum set of capabilities. NERC's implementation plan provides that the proposed Reliability Standards would become effective the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 months following Commission approval.
10. Notice of NERC's Petition was published on June 8, 2016 in the
11. Pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2016), the timely motion to intervene filed by Dominion serves to make it a party to this proceeding.
12. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, the Commission approves Reliability Standards IRO-018-1 and TOP-010-1 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public interest. Reliability Standards IRO-018-1 and TOP-010-1 improve real-time situational awareness capabilities and enhance reliable operations by requiring reliability coordinators, transmission operators, and balancing authorities to provide operators with an improved awareness of system conditions analysis capabilities, including alarm availability, so that operators may take appropriate steps to ensure reliability. The Reliability Standards accomplish this by requiring that applicable entities provide notification to operators of real-time system awareness and monitoring alarm failures. We agree with NERC that requiring applicable entities to implement operating processes or operating procedures governing the quality of the information they are providing on monitoring and analysis capabilities will enhance reliability. Further, we determine that Reliability Standards IRO-018-1 and TOP-010-1, together with existing Commission-approved Reliability Standards, adequately address the relevant directives in Order No. 693. We also approve NERC's proposed implementation plan, violation severity levels and, with the exceptions discussed below, violation risk factors.
13. On May 18, 2007, the Commission established guidelines for determining whether to approve violation risk factors proposed by NERC.
14. NERC contends that it is appropriate, under the Commission's guidelines, to assign “medium” violation risk factors to Requirement R1 of Reliability Standard IRO-018-1 and Requirements R1 and R2 of Reliability Standard TOP-010-1. Regarding the
15. NERC also contends that a “medium” violation risk factor for these requirements satisfies the second and third guidelines because it is consistent within the Reliability Standards and among other Reliability Standards with similar requirements. Specifically, NERC states that a “medium” violation risk factor comports with the second guideline because the Reliability Standards contain similar responsibilities for different applicable entities. NERC also explains that such a designation is consistent with other Reliability Standards that involve effective monitoring and control of the bulk electric system. As examples, NERC points to “medium” violation risk factor designations for Reliability Standards TOP-003-3, Requirement R5 and IRO-010-2, Requirement R3, which provide that applicable entities shall provide the data necessary for transmission operators and reliability coordinators to perform real-time monitoring and real-time assessments. In addition, NERC cites Reliability Standard TOP-001-3, Requirement R9, which requires transmission operators and balancing authorities to notify reliability coordinators and others of planned and unplanned outages of monitoring and assessment capabilities, which has also been assigned a “medium” violation risk factor.
16. NERC contends that the proposed designations are also consistent with NERC's definition of “medium” violation risk factor, and thus consistent with the fourth Commission guideline. NERC explains that the purpose of these Reliability Standards is to address recommendations regarding real-time situational awareness and to require entities to take steps to address data or analysis quality concerns to the extent that it affects their ability to perform real-time monitoring and analysis. NERC believes that violation of any of these requirements could directly affect the ability to effectively monitor and control the bulk electric system, but is unlikely to lead to bulk electric system instability, separation, or cascading failures.
17. With respect to the fifth guideline, NERC states that the proposed violation risk factor assignments do not reflect the lower of multiple reliability objectives as each applicable requirement contains one reliability objective.
18. We determine that the “medium” violation risk factors NERC proposes to assign to Requirement R1 of Reliability Standard IRO-018-1 and Requirements R1 and R2 of Reliability Standard TOP-010-1 are not consistent with the Commission's guidelines. As discussed below, NERC has not adequately justified the proposed “medium” violation risk factor designations. Specifically, we find that the proposed designations are inconsistent with NERC's definition of violation risk factor; the recommendations contained in the 2003 Blackout Report; and other Reliability Standards with similar requirements. Accordingly, we direct NERC to raise these violation risk factor designations to “high.”
19. The fourth Commission guideline calls for consistency with NERC's definition of the appropriate violation risk factor level.
20. NERC's assertion that a violation of Requirement R1 of Reliability Standard IRO-018-1 and Requirements R1 and R2 of Reliability Standard TOP-010-1 is unlikely to lead to bulk electric system instability, separation, or cascading failures is unpersuasive. The 2003 Blackout Report identified four groups of causes of the blackout, one of which was failure of the interconnected transmission network's reliability organizations to provide effective real-time diagnostic support.
21. Regarding the third guideline, existing Reliability Standards require real-time monitoring and assessments by reliability coordinators (IRO-002-4 and IRO-008-2), transmission operators (TOP-001-3), and balancing authorities (TOP-001-3). Reliability Standards IRO-002-4, Requirements R3 and R4, IRO-008-2, Requirement R4, and TOP-001-3, Requirement R13 require monitoring and analysis of the bulk electric system and have “high” violation risk factors. The requirements of Reliability Standards IRO-018-1 and TOP-010-1 are designed to ensure the accuracy of the data used in these existing Reliability Standards to perform the required monitoring and analysis activities of the bulk electric system. The quality of the data is an essential element of the monitoring and analysis process.
22. We are not persuaded by NERC's reliance on the violation risk factors in existing Reliability Standards TOP-003-3 and IRO-010-2 to support assigning a “medium” violation risk factor to
23. Nor are we persuaded by NERC's citation of a “medium” violation risk factor for Reliability Standard TOP-001-3, Requirement R9. This requirement mandates that each transmission operator and balancing authority notify its reliability coordinator and known impacted interconnected entities of, among other things, all planned outages, and unplanned outages of 30 minutes or more, for monitoring and assessment capabilities, and associated communication channels between the affected entities. This is a notification requirement, not a real-time performance requirement. The notified entity already is subject to performance requirements relating to its real-time monitoring and assessment capabilities.
24. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires each federal agency to seek and obtain Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval before undertaking a collection of information directed to ten or more persons or contained in a rule of general applicability.
25. The Commission will submit the information collection requirements to OMB for its review and approval. The Commission solicits public comments on its need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of burden and cost estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques. Comments are due November 28, 2016.
26. The Commission is approving the proposed Reliability Standards IRO-018-01 (Reliability Coordinator Real-time Reliability Monitoring and Analysis Capabilities, associated with FERC-725Z (Mandatory Reliability Standards: IRO Reliability Standards)) and TOP-010-1 (Real-time Reliability Monitoring and Analysis Capabilities, associated with FERC-725A (Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk Power System)).
27. The Commission finds that the new TOP and IRO Reliability Standards improve reliability by providing rigorous functional requirements for real-time monitoring and analysis. Reliability Standards IRO-018-1 and TOP-010-1 were created to improve real-time situational awareness capabilities and enhance reliable operations by requiring reliability coordinators, transmission operators, and balancing authorities to provide operators with awareness of monitoring and analysis capabilities, including alarm availability, so that entities may take appropriate steps to ensure reliability.
28. The Commission approves Reliability Standards IRO-018-1 and TOP-010-1, which enhance reliability by accomplishing Blackout Report Recommendation 22 to evaluate and adopt better real-time tools for operators and reliability coordinators and establish requirements to perform real-time monitoring and analysis capabilities to support reliable system operations. The new Reliability Standards build upon existing requirements to support effective real-time monitoring and analysis and improved situational awareness, and thereby enhance reliable operations. Reliability Standard IRO-018-1 is applicable to reliability coordinators. Reliability Standard TOP-010-1 applies to transmission operators and balancing authorities.
29. The
30. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email:
31. This order will become effective upon issuance.
(A) Reliability Standards IRO-018-1 and TOP-010-1 are hereby approved, as discussed in the body of this order.
(B) NERC is hereby directed to submit a compliance filing within 60 days of the date of this order designating the violation risk factors for Requirement R1 of Reliability Standard IRO-018-1 and Requirements R1 and R2 of Reliability Standard TOP-010-1 as “high,” as discussed in the body of this order.
By the Commission.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Panda Stonewall LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is October 13, 2016.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
k. Description of Request: In its application, GRDA requests a permanent amendment of the project's Article 401 reservoir elevation rule curve, from August 16 through October 31, each year.
GRDA indicates that it seeks the rule curve change to reduce the risk of vessel groundings at Grand Lake in late summer, improve recreation during a peak recreation season, better balance competing stakeholder interests, and provide additional water storage so that, in the event of drought, water would be available for release to aid in maintaining water quality in the river downstream.
Under GRDA's proposal, between August 16 and September 15, the reservoir would be maintained at elevation 743 feet Pensacola Datum (PD), which is up to two feet higher than the current rule curve. Between September 16 and September 30, the elevation would be lowered from 743 to 742 feet PD. Between October 1 and October 31, the reservoir would be maintained at elevation 742 feet PD, which is up to one foot higher than the current rule curve. After October 31, reservoir elevations would follow the project's current rule curve. With its application, GRDA includes a Storm Adaptive Management Plan that would be followed to address high water conditions upstream and downstream of Grand Lake during major precipitation events in the river basin. GRDA also includes a Drought Adaptive Management Plan that would be followed to determine project operation, including deviations from the rule curve elevations, to allow releases for maintenance of downstream water quality and reliable operation of GRDA's downstream Salina Pumped Storage Project if certain drought conditions occur.
l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the amendment application. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Gulf Connector Expansion Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) in Wharton, San Patricio, Hardin, and Victoria Counties, Texas. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before October 24, 2016.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on August 16, 2016, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP16-494-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a Transco representative may contact you about the acquisition of land to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, Transco could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
Transco provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP16-494-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Transco proposes to construct and operate new compressor stations and modify existing compressor stations in Texas. According to Transco, the Gulf Connector Expansion Project would provide about 475 million standard cubic feet of natural gas per day to liquefied natural gas terminals in Freeport Bay and Corpus Christi Bay, Texas.
The Gulf Connector Expansion Project would consist of the following facilities:
• A new compressor station to be known as Compressor Station 32 located in San Patricio County, Texas;
• piping and valve modifications at an existing compressor station known as Compressor Station 40 located in Hardin County, Texas;
• a new compressor station to be known as Compressor Station 17 located in San Patricio County, Texas;
• a new compressor station to be known as Compressor Station 23 located in Victoria County, Texas;
• piping and valve modifications at an existing compressor station known as Compressor Station 30 located in Wharton County, Texas;
• a new interconnection with Corpus Christi LNG located in San Patricio County, Texas; and
• use of a decommissioned compressor station known as Compressor Station 20 to be used as a construction storage yard.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 197 acres of land. Following construction, Transco would maintain about 46 acres for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the
• Geology and soils;
• land use;
• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• cultural resources;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• air quality and noise;
• endangered and threatened species;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts.
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the “Document-less Intervention Guide” under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that on September 19, 2016, pursuant to Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Vote Solar Initiative and Montana Environmental Information Center (collectively, Vote Solar) filed a formal complaint against Montana Public Service Commission (Respondent) alleging that Respondent violated
Vote Solar certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Montana Public Service Commission, on contacts for North Western Energy as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials, and on other persons who may be affected by the complaint.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces two meetings of the Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee Augmented for the Review of the Draft Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) IRIS Assessment (CAAC Augmented for RDX). A public teleconference will be held to learn about the development of the Agency's draft IRIS Toxicological Review of RDX (September, 2016) and to discuss draft charge questions for the peer review of the document. A face-to-face meeting will be held in the Washington, DC metro area to conduct a peer review of the agency's draft IRIS Toxicological Review of RDX (External Review Draft—September 2016).
The public teleconference will be held on Thursday, November 17, 2016, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time). The public face-to-face meeting will be held on Monday, December 12, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., (Eastern Standard Time); Tuesday, December 13, 2016 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and Wednesday, December 14, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).
The public teleconference will be conducted by telephone only. The public face-to-face meeting will be held at Milken Institute School of Public Health, Convening Center Room, George Washington University, 950 New Hampshire Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20052.
Any member of the public wishing further information regarding this meeting may contact Dr. Diana Wong, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), SAB Staff Office, by telephone at (202) 564-2049 or via email at
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) requested that the SAB conduct a peer review of the draft IRIS
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Information Collection Effort for Oil and Gas Facilities” (EPA ICR No. 2548.01, OMB Control No. 2060—NEW) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 31, 2016.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0204, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Brenda Shine, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3608; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
There will be two parts to the information collection. Part 1, referred to as the operator survey, is specifically designed to obtain information from onshore oil and gas production facilities to better understand the number and types of equipment at production facilities. Part 2, referred to as the detailed facility survey, will be sent to selected oil and gas facilities across the different industry segments. Part 2 will collect detailed, unit-specific information on emission sources at the facility and any emission control devices or management practices used to reduce emissions. Due to the large number of potentially affected facilities, Part 2 uses a statistical sampling method
The data collected throughout this process will be used to determine the number of potentially affected emission sources and the types and prevalence of emission controls or emission reduction measures used for these sources at existing oil and gas facilities, among other purposes. This information may also be used to fill data gaps, to evaluate the emission and cost impacts of various regulatory options, and to establish appropriate standards of performance for oil and gas facilities.
Respondents will be required to respond under the authority of section 114 of the CAA. The EPA anticipates issuing the CAA section 114 letters by late October, 2016. These letters would require the owner/operator of an oil and gas facility to complete and submit the Part 1 survey within 30 days of receipt of the survey, and would require facilities to complete and submit the Part 2 survey with 120 days of receipt.
All information submitted to the Agency in response to the surveys will be managed in accordance with applicable laws and the EPA's regulations governing treatment of CBI at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. Any information determined to constitute a trade secret will be protected under 18 U.S.C. 1905.
The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on September 29, 2016 which is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC.
The Commission will consider the following subjects listed below as a consent agenda and these items will not be presented individually:
The Commission will consider the following personnel actions listed below and these items will not be presented individually:
The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to:
Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from the Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at
For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services, call (703) 993-3100 or go to
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 October 26, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (William Spaniel, Senior Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-1521. Comments can also be sent electronically to
1.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Prevalence Survey of Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAIs) and Antimicrobial Use in U.S. Acute Care Hospitals—Revision—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Preventing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and reducing the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance are priorities for the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Improving antimicrobial drug prescribing in the United States is a critical component of strategies to reduce antimicrobial resistance, and is a key component of the President's National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria (CARB), which calls for “inappropriate inpatient antibiotic use for monitored conditions/agents” to be “reduced 20% from 2014 levels” (page 9,
Today more than 5,000 short-term acute care hospitals participate in national HAI surveillance through the CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN, OMB Control No. 0920-0666, expiration 12/31/18). These hospitals' surveillance efforts are focused on those HAIs that are required to be reported as part of state legislative mandates or Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) Program. Hospitals do not report data on all types of HAIs occurring hospital-wide. Data from a previous prevalence survey showed that approximately 28% of all HAIs are included in the CMS IQR Program. Periodic assessments of the magnitude and types of HAIs occurring in all patient populations in hospitals are needed to inform decisions by local and national policy makers and by hospital infection prevention professionals regarding appropriate targets and strategies for HAI prevention.
The CDC's hospital prevalence survey efforts began in 2008-2009. A pilot survey was conducted over a 1-day period at each of nine acute care hospitals in one U.S. city. This pilot phase was followed in 2010 by a phase 2, limited roll-out HAI and antimicrobial use prevalence survey, conducted in 22 hospitals across 10 Emerging Infections Program sites (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Tennessee). A full-scale, phase 3 survey was conducted in 2011, involving 183 hospitals in the 10 Emerging Infections Program (EIP) sites. Data from this survey conducted in 2011 showed that there were an estimated 722,000 HAIs in U.S acute care hospitals in 2011, and about half of the 11,282 patients included in the survey in 2011 were receiving antimicrobial drugs. The survey was repeated in 2015-2016 to update the national HAI and antimicrobial drug use burden; data from this survey will also provide baseline information on the quality of antimicrobial drug prescribing for selected, common clinical conditions in hospitals. Data collection is ongoing at this time.
A revision of the prevalence survey's existing OMB approval is sought to reduce the data collection burden and to extend the approval to allow another short-term acute care hospital survey to be conducted in 2019. Data from the 2019 survey will be used to evaluate progress in eliminating HAIs and improving antimicrobial drug use.
The 2019 survey will be performed in a sample of up to 300 acute care hospitals, drawn from the acute care hospital populations in each of the 10 EIP sites (and including participation from many hospitals that participated in prior phases of the survey). Infection prevention personnel in participating hospitals and EIP site personnel will collect demographic and clinical data from the medical records of a sample of eligible patients in their hospitals on a single day in 2019, to identify CDC-defined HAIs and collect information on antimicrobial drug use. The survey data will be used to estimate the prevalence of HAIs and antimicrobial drug use and describe the distribution of infection types and pathogens. The data will also be used to determine the quality of antimicrobial drug prescribing. These data will inform strategies to reduce and eliminate healthcare-associated infections—a DHHS Healthy People 2020 objective (
There are no costs to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated annual burden hours is 1,860. This represents a reduction in the total estimated annual burden hours from the previous approval due to a reduction in the number of respondents.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by October 31, 2016.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
The Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD), Administration for Community Living (ACL), HHS.
Notice.
The Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD), now part of the Administration for Community Living, is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments on the collection of information by October 31, 2016.
Ophelia McLain at 202-795-7401
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (now part of the Administration for Community Living) has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Section 104 (42 U.S.C. 15004) of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (DD Act of 2000) directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop and implement a system of program accountability to monitor the grantees funded under the DD Act of 2000. The program accountability system shall include the National Network of University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service (UCEDDs) authorized under Part D of the DD Act of 2000. In addition to the accountability system, Section 154 (e) (42 U.S.C. 15064) of the DD Act of 2000 includes requirements for a UCEDD Annual Report.
The proposed data collection tools may be found on the ACL/AIDD Web site at:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is correcting a notice that appeared in the
Jonathan McKnight, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
In the
On page 62910, in the first column under the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by November 28, 2016.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
On October 25, 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) (Pub. L. 103-417) was signed into law. DSHEA, among other things, amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) by adding section 402(g) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342(g)). Section 402(g)(2) of the FD&C Act provides, in part, that the Secretary of Health and Human Services may, by regulation, prescribe good manufacturing practices for dietary supplements. Section 402(g) of the FD&C Act also stipulates that such regulations will be modeled after CGMP regulations for food and may not impose standards for which there are no current, and generally available, analytical methodology. Section 402(g)(1) of the FD&C Act states that a dietary supplement is adulterated if “it has been prepared, packed, or held under conditions that do not meet current good manufacturing practice regulations.” Under section 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371), FDA may issue regulations necessary for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act. In the
Records are an indispensable component of CGMP. The records required by FDA's regulations in part 111 provide the foundation for the planning, control, and improvement processes that constitute a quality control system. Implementation of these processes in a manufacturing operation serves as the backbone to CGMP. The records show what is to be manufactured; what was, in fact, manufactured; and whether the controls that the manufacturer put in place to ensure the identity, purity, strength, and composition and limits on contaminants and to prevent adulteration were effective. Further, records will show whether and what deviations from control processes occurred, facilitate evaluation and corrective action concerning these deviations (including, where necessary, whether associated batches of product should be recalled from the marketplace), and enable a manufacturer to assure that the corrective action was effective. In
The recordkeeping requirements of the regulations include establishing written procedures and maintaining records pertaining to: (1) Personnel; (2) sanitation; (3) calibration of instruments and controls; (4) calibration, inspection, or checks of automated, mechanical, or electronic equipment; (5) maintaining, cleaning, and sanitizing equipment and utensils and other contact surfaces; (6) water used that may become a component of the dietary supplement; (7) production and process controls; (8) quality control; (9) components, packaging, labels and product received for packaging and labeling; (10) master manufacturing and batch production; (11) laboratory operations; (12) manufacturing operations; (13) packaging and labeling operations; (14) holding and distributing operations; (15) returned dietary supplements; and (16) product complaints.
The recordkeeping requirements of the regulations in part 111 are set forth in each subpart. In table 1 of this document, we list the annual burdens associated with recordkeeping, as described in the June 25, 2007, final rule. For some provisions listed in table 1, we did not estimate the number of records per recordkeeper because recordkeeping occasions consist of frequent brief entries of dates, temperatures, monitoring results, or documentation that specific actions were taken. Information might be recorded a few times a day, week, or month. When the records burden involves frequent brief entries, we entered 1 as the default for the number of records per recordkeeper. For example, many of the records listed under § 111.35 in table 1, such as § 111.35(b)(2) (documentation, in individual equipment logs, of the date of the use, maintenance, cleaning, and sanitizing of equipment), involve many short sporadic entries over the course of the year, varying across equipment and plants in the industry. We did not attempt to estimate the actual number of recordkeeping occasions for these provisions, but instead entered an estimate of the average number of hours per year. We entered the default value of 1 as the number of records per recordkeeper for these and similar provisions. For § 111.35, the entry for number of records is 1 as a default representing a large number of brief recordkeeping occasions.
In many rows of table 1 of this document, we list a burden under a single provision that covers the written procedures or records described in several provisions. For example, the burden of the batch production records listed in table 1 under § 111.260 includes the burden for records listed under § 111.255 because the batch production records must include those records. The number of records for batch production records (and other records kept on a batch basis in table 1 of this document) equals the annual number of batches. The estimated burden for records kept by batch includes both records kept for every batch and records kept for some but not all batches. We use the annual number of batches as the number of records that will not necessarily be kept for every batch, such as test results or material review and disposition records, because such records are part of records, if they are necessary, that will be kept for every batch.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The average burden per recordkeeping estimates in Table 1 of this document are based on those in the June 25, 2007, final rule, which were based on our institutional experience with other CGMP requirements and on data provided by Research Triangle Institute in the “Survey of Manufacturing Practices in the Dietary Supplement Industry” cited in that rule.
The estimates in table 1 of the number of firms affected by each provision of part 111 are based on the percentage of manufacturers, packagers, labelers, holders, distributors, and warehousers that reported in the survey that they have not established written SOPs or do not maintain records that were later required by the June 25, 2007, final rule. Because we do not have survey results for general warehouses, we entered the approximate number of facilities in that category for those provisions covering general facilities. For the dietary supplement industry, the survey estimated that 1,460 firms would be covered by the final rule, including manufacturers, packagers, labelers, holders, distributors, and warehousers. The time estimates include the burden involved in documenting that certain requirements are performed and in recordkeeping. We used an estimated annual batch production of 1,408 batches per year to estimate the burden of requirements that are related to the number of batches produced annually, such as § 111.260, “What must the batch production record include?” The estimate of 1,408 batches per year is near the midpoint of the number of annual batches reported by survey firms.
The length of time that CGMP records must be maintained is set forth in § 111.605. Table 1 of this document reflects the estimated burdens for written procedures, record maintenance, periodically reviewing records to determine if they may be discarded, and for any associated documentation for that activity for records that are required under part 111. We have not included a separate estimate of burden for those sections that require maintaining records in accordance with § 111.605, but have included those burdens under specific provisions for keeping records. For example, § 111.255(a) requires that the batch production records be prepared every time a batch is manufactured, and § 111.255(d) requires that batch production records be kept in accordance with § 111.605. The estimated burdens for both § 111.255(a) and (d) are included under § 111.260, what the batch record must include.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration is correcting a notice entitled “Biosimilar User Fee Act; Public Meeting” that appeared in the
Lisa Granger, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9115,
In the
1. On page 64172, in the first column, in the third sentence of the
2. On page 64175, in the third column, the section “
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HRSA is publishing this notice of petitions received under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the Program), as required by Section 2112(b)(2) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. While the Secretary of HHS (the Secretary) is named as the respondent in all proceedings brought by the filing of petitions for compensation under the Program, the United States Court of Federal Claims is charged by statute
For information about requirements for filing petitions, and the Program in general, contact the Clerk, United States Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Place NW., Washington, DC 20005, (202) 357-6400. For information on HRSA's role in the Program, contact the Director, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 08N146B, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-6593, or visit our Web site at:
The Program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10
A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table) set forth at 42 CFR 100.3. This Table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions that may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the Table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.
Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that “[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 2111 the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the
Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:
1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and
2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:
a. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or
b. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.
In accordance with Section 2112(b)(2), all interested persons may submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading
Office of Inspector General (OIG), HHS.
Notice.
The Simple Extensible Sampling Tool Challenge (Challenge) is an HHS/OIG Challenge under the “America COMPETES” (Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science) Reauthorization Act of
Important dates regarding the Challenge include the following:
Jared Smith, 202-205-9119 or
RAT-STATS is a basic sampling tool that was originally designed by OIG to give nonexperts a robust method for selecting statistically valid samples in the health care oversight environment. RAT-STATS is used by both Government agencies and private health care providers and has been involved in billions of dollars in audit-related recoveries.
The objective of the current Challenge is to develop the foundation for an upgraded version of RAT-STATS. The current version of RAT-STATS is well validated; however, its user interface can be difficult to navigate, and the underlying code makes the software costly to update. OIG needs a new, modern version of the software that is easy to use and can be extended in a cost-effective manner.
Submissions will be reviewed in the order they are received by OIG. After the first five finalists are identified, no further submissions will be reviewed. This exclusion applies even to submissions received prior to when the fifth finalist is identified and submissions received before May 15, 2017, 5:00 p.m. EST. In addition, even if five finalists are not identified, entries received after May 15, 2017, 5:00 p.m. EST, will not be considered. The number of submissions under review, the number of finalists identified, and the names of the finalists will all be posted at the public Web site
Upon being notified that an entry has been reviewed and does not meet the criteria for becoming a finalist, a participant has 7 business days to request an explanation for the rejection. Explanation requests must be sent via email to
Other than as described in the previous paragraph, OIG is not required to provide feedback to challenge participants with respect to any information submitted. By submitting an entry, individuals and teams grant OIG the right to use all or part of its Challenge entry (
OIG will amend this
Each year HHS handles hundreds of millions of Medicare and Medicaid claims valued at more than a trillion dollars. Due to the high volume of claims, statistical sampling provides a critical tool to ensure effective oversight of these expenditures. Sampling is used by the providers in their own efforts to monitor their performance and by the various organizations within HHS. There are a wide range of different software tools for performing statistical analysis. RAT-STATS has a unique niche in that it provides a straightforward tool for individuals who need a simple but robust method for selecting and analyzing statistical samples. The RAT-STATS software was originally created in 1978 and has gone through several upgrades since that time. Unlike a full statistical package that attempts to answer all types of questions for a wide range of users, RAT-STATS serves as a streamlined solution to handle the specific task of developing valid statistical samples and estimates within the health care oversight setting.
For example, an OIG investigator may pull a simple random sample in order to estimate damages for a provider suspected of fraud. RAT-STATS generates valid pseudo-random numbers and outputs all of the information needed to replicate the sample. Once the investigator finishes reviewing the sample, he or she can then enter the results into RAT-STATS to get the final statistical estimate. While the investigator may need some basic training in statistics, he or she would not need the same level of expertise as would be required to navigate the many options available in a full-service statistical or data analysis package.
The objective of the current Challenge is to develop the foundation for an upgraded version of RAT-STATS. The current version of RAT-STATS is well validated; however, its user interface can be difficult to navigate and the underlying code makes the software costly to update. OIG needs a new, modern version of the software that is easy to use and can be extended in a cost-effective manner. In addition, the new version of the software must be 508 compliant.
The current version of the RAT-STATS software can be found at the following web address:
In order to complete the Challenge participants must create a software package that replicates the operation of four of the functions of the original RAT-STATS software: (1) Single Stage Random Numbers; (2) Unrestricted Attribute Appraisal; (3) Unrestricted Variable Appraisal; and (4) Stratified Variable Appraisal. In addition, submissions must meet all of the rules and requirements outlined in this Notice.
The detailed technical specifications behind the 4 RAT-STATS functions along with 10 test datasets will be provided in their entirety at the start of the competition at
Teams of one or more members can participate in this Challenge. There is no maximum team size. Each team must have a captain, and each individual may only be part of a single team. Individual team members and team captains must
(1) To be eligible to win the Challenge prize, each participant (individual or entity) must—
a. register to participate in the Challenge under the rules promulgated by OIG as published in this Notice;
b. have complied with all the requirements under this section;
c. in the case of a private entity, be incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States or, in the case of an individual, be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States;
d. not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of their employment;
e. not be an employee of OIG, a judge of the Challenge, or any other party involved with the design, production, execution, or distribution of the Challenge or the immediate family of such a party (
f. be at least 18 years old at the time of submission.
(2) Federal contractors may not use Federal funds from a contract to develop their Challenge submissions or to fund efforts in support of their Challenge submission.
(3) Federal grantees may not use Federal funds to develop COMPETES Act Challenge applications unless consistent with the purpose of their grant award.
(4) An individual or entity shall not be deemed ineligible because the individual or entity used Federal facilities or consulted with Federal employees during a competition if the facilities and employees are made available to all individuals and entities participating in the competition on an equitable basis.
(5) By participating in this Challenge, each individual (whether competing singly or in a group) and entity agrees to assume any and all risks and waive claims against the Federal Government and its related entities (as defined in the COMPETES Act), except in the case of willful misconduct, for any injury, death, damage, or loss of property, revenue, or profits, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, arising from participation in this Challenge, whether the injury, death, damage, or loss arises through negligence or otherwise.
(6) No individual (whether competing singly or in a group) or entity participating in the Challenge is required to obtain liability insurance or demonstrate financial responsibility in order to participate in this Challenge.
(7) By participating in this competition, each individual and entity agrees to assume any and all risks and waive claims against the Federal Government and its related entities, except in the case of willful misconduct, for any injury, death, damage, or loss of property, revenue, or profits, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, arising from my participation in this prize contest, whether the injury, death, damage, or loss arises through negligence or otherwise.
(8) By participating in this Challenge, each individual (whether participating singly or in a group) and entity grants to OIG, in any existing or inchoate copyright or patent rights owned by the individual or entity, an irrevocable, paid-up, royalty-free, nonexclusive worldwide license to use, reproduce, post, link to, share, and display publicly on the Web the submission, except for source code. This license includes without limitation posting or linking to the submission, except for source code, on OIG's public facing Web site (
(9) OIG reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to (a) cancel, suspend, or modify the Challenge through amendment to this
(10) Each individual (whether participating singly or in a group) or entity agrees to follow all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and policies.
(11) Each individual (whether participating singly or in a group) and entity participating in this Challenge must comply with all terms and conditions of these rules, and participation in this Challenge constitutes each such participant's full and unconditional agreement to abide by these rules. Winning is contingent upon fulfilling all requirements herein.
(12) Each individual (whether participating singly or in a group) and entity grants to OIG and its contractors assisting OIG with this Challenge the right to review the submission, study the algorithms and the code, and run the software on other sets of images.
(13) Submissions must not infringe upon any copyright, patent, trade secrets, or any other rights of any third party. Each individual (whether participating singly or in a group) or entity warrants that she or the team is the sole author and owner of any copyrightable work that the submission comprises, that the submission is wholly original with the participant or is an improved version of an existing work that the participant has sufficient rights to use and improve. In addition, the submission must not trigger any reporting or royalty obligation to any third party. A submission must not include proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information.
(14) The licenses for any code used as part of a submission must be compatible with each other and must allow OIG to distribute and modify the software both within and outside the agency without incurring any reporting or royalty obligations to any third party.
(15) The submission must not contain malicious code such as viruses, timebombs, cancelbots, worms, trojan horses, or other potentially harmful programs or other material or information.
(16) The submission must be unique and must not represent a modification of a previous submission from another team.
(17) Submitted software must be fully functional and operate correctly on Microsoft Windows systems configured in accordance with the applicable United States Government Configuration Baseline (USGCB) and applicable configurations (
(18) Submitted software must be a stand-alone product that is designed for end users to run in the standard user context without requiring elevated administrative privileges.
(19) Submitted software must not require or make use of any network capabilities.
(20) Submitted software must be section 508 compliant. For example, it must be possible to run all functions using a keyboard, the software must include a well-defined indicator of current program focus, any results provided in image format must also be available in text, and color coding shall not be used as the only means of conveying information. For more details refer to section 36 CFR 1194.21.
Beginning on September 28, 2016, visit
Submissions must be entered electronically using the challenge.gov Web site
(1) Executable software that replicates the four target RAT-STATS functions: Single Stage Random Numbers, Unrestricted Attribute Appraisal, Unrestricted Variable Appraisal, and the Stratified Variable Appraisal.
(2) Source code for the executable that is both human- and machine-readable. The source code can be written in any programming language(s) as long as the requirements of this notice are met. The source code must be commented sufficiently so that another user can understand the underlying operation of the code.
(3) A text file written in English documenting and explaining any noncosmetic differences between the submission and the original RAT-STATS software.
(4) A text file written in English summarizing the changes required to add additional RAT-STATS functions to the submission.
(5) A text file written in English documenting all software licenses associated with the source code used as part of the project. The text file must describe the nature of each individual license and their overall compatibility.
(6) A one-page text file written in English that contains the following:
a. Names and email addresses of the team captain and all team members.
b. A five or more character identifier for the entry that is used as a prefix in the names of all of the team's submitted files.
c. A brief description of the submission.
The first five submissions that meet all of the requirements outlined in this Notice will receive $3,000. In addition, if a submission is selected to serve as the foundation for the new version of RAT-STATS, then that submission will receive an additional $25,000. The names of the winners will be posted on OIG Web sites. In addition, all winners will be notified via email at the email addresses provided in their prize submissions.
Prizes awarded under this Challenge will be paid by electronic funds transfer and may be subject to Federal income taxes. OIG will comply with U.S. Internal Revenue Service withholding and reporting requirements, where applicable.
To select a winner, OIG will first review submissions in the order in which they are received to determine their suitability for judging and eligibility to win the prize. An eligible submission must comply with all rules and requirements outlined in this
Submissions that meet the initial eligibility requirements will proceed to the next phase in the judging process, which will assess the submissions based on their ability to replicate RAT-STATS output for 60 test datasets. The 60 test cases will be the same for all submissions. Ten of these test cases will be made available to the public at the start of the Challenge at
The first five eligible submissions that comply with the rules of this Notice, follow the detailed submission instructions, are complete, and are able to fully replicate RAT-STATS on the 60 target cases will each be declared a finalist. Once five finalists have been identified, no further applications will be reviewed even if they are submitted prior to the May 15, 2017, 5:00 p.m. EST deadline. Moreover, the contest will end on May 15, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. EST even if fewer than five finalists have been selected.
The replacement for RAT-STATS will be voted on by 12 HHS/OIG Office of Audit Services (OAS) statistical specialists. The finalist with the greatest number of votes will be selected as the replacement for RAT-STATS and will receive the overall prize. Each statistical specialist will be given a 2-week period to review the submissions and to vote on the submission that he or she would prefer to use in the future. The instructions for the voting will be as follows: “Please review the operation of the following software packages and select one that you would prefer to use in the future for selecting and analyzing your statistical samples.” In the case of a tie, the OAS lead statistician will serve as the tie-breaking vote.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee will meet in Leesburg, VA to discuss various issues relating to national maritime security. This meeting will be open to the public.
The Committee will meet on Tuesday, October 18, 2016, from 1:15 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Wednesday, October 19, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 12 Noon. Either session may close early if all business is finished.
The meeting will be held in the Belmont A and B Room at The National Conference Center, 18980 Upper Belmont Place, Leesburg, VA 20176. The location's Web site is
This meeting will be broadcast via a web enabled interactive online format and teleconference line. To participate via teleconference, dial 1-855-475-2447; the pass code to join is 764 990 20#. Additionally, if you would like to participate in this meeting via the online web format, please log onto
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the person listed in the
All comments received will be posted without alteration at
Public oral comments will be sought throughout the meeting by the Designated Federal Officer as specific issues are discussed by the Committee. Additionally, public oral comment periods will be held during the meetings on October 18, 2016, from 4 p.m. to 4:15 p.m., and October 19, 2016, from 11:30 a.m. to 12 Noon. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the public comment period will end following the last call for comments, even if the entire scheduled period has not elapsed. Contact the person listed in the
Mr. Ryan Owens, Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593, Stop 7581, Washington, DC 20593-7581; telephone 202-372-1108 or email
Notice of this meeting is in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5, United States Code Appendix. The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee operates under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 70112. The Committee provides advice to, consults with, and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security, via the Commandant of the Coast Guard, on matters relating to national maritime security.
A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at
The Committee will meet to review, discuss, and formulate recommendations on the following issues:
(1) Extremely Hazardous Cargo Strategy. In July, the Coast Guard tasked the Committee to work with the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee to assist in the development of an Extremely Hazardous Cargo Strategy Implementation Plan. The Committee will receive an update from the Extremely Hazardous Cargo Working Group on their efforts.
(2) Transportation Worker Identification Credential. The Committee will receive a brief and provide comment on current Transportation Worker Identification Credential efforts.
(3) Facility Security Officer Regulation and Training. The Committee will receive a brief and provide comment on current regulation and training efforts
(4) Regulatory Update. The Committee will receive an update brief on regulatory efforts to date.
(5) Public Comment period.
The Committee will meet to review, discuss and formulate recommendations on the following issues:
(1) Future Maritime Security Concerns. The Committee will be tasked with developing a long term list of maritime concerns for potential future taskings.
(2) Joint Port Recovery Protocols. The Committee will receive a brief and provide recommendations on the efforts to update the United States Coast Guard/Customs and Border Protection Joint Port Recovery Protocols.
(3) Transportation Security Administration's Intermodal Security Training and Exercise Program “Maritime Active Shooter Tabletop Exercises” for Large Passenger Vessel Operations. The Committee will receive a brief and provide recommendations on the efforts to update on this training program
(4) Public comment period.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before December 28, 2016.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1650, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
I. Watershed-based studies:
II. Non-watershed-based studies:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Maryland (FEMA-4279-DR), dated September 16, 2016, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Maryland resulting from a severe storm and flooding during the period of July 30-31, 2016, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Timothy Manner, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Maryland have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Howard County for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Maryland are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of February 3, 2017 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
I. Watershed-based studies:
II. Non-watershed-based studies:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title 44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before December 28, 2016.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1651, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
I. Watershed-based studies:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of issuance of permits.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have issued the following permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. We issue these permits under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
Brenda Tapia, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, Branch of Permits, MS: IA, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; fax (703) 358-2281.
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358-2104 (telephone); (703) 358-2281 (fax);
On the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, Branch of Permits, MS: IA, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; fax (703) 358-2281.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before October 31, 2016. We must receive requests for marine mammal permit public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the
•
•
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358-2104 (telephone); (703) 358-2281 (fax);
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to export two male and two female captive bred Grand Cayman blue iguanas (
The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from captive bred Sumatran orangutan (
The applicant requests amendment of an existing captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to add the following species to enhance species propagation or survival: Leopard (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species to enhance species propagation or survival: Radiated tortoise (
The applicant requests amendment of an existing captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to add the following species to enhance species propagation or survival: Cuban crocodile (
The applicant requests a permit for public display of one Pacific walrus (
Concurrent with publishing this notice in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from Roseburg Resources Co. for an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Enhancement of Survival Permit (permit) for take of the federally threatened northern spotted owl. The permit application includes a draft Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) addressing Service access to Roseburg Resources Co. lands for the survey and removal of barred owls as part of the Service's Barred Owl Removal Experiment in Douglas County, Oregon. In response to the permit application, the Service has prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) addressing the permit action. We are making the permit application, including the draft SHA and the draft EA, available for public review and comment.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be received from interested parties by October 31, 2016.
To request further information or submit written comments, please use one of the following methods, and note that your information request or comments are in reference to the Roseburg Resources Co. draft SHA and draft EA.
•
•
•
•
•
Robin Bown, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
The Roseburg Resources Co. has applied to the Service for a permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
The SHA covers approximately 45,100 acres of forest lands owned by the Roseburg Resources Co. where timber management activities will occur within the experiment treatment portion of the Union/Myrtle (Klamath) Study Area near Canyonville in Douglas County, Oregon. The SHA addresses timber management activities only in the treatment portion of the study area on Roseburg Resources Co. lands. Impacts to the threatened northern spotted owl (
Under a SHA, participating landowners voluntarily undertake activities on their property to benefit species listed under the ESA. SHAs and their associated permits are intended to encourage private and other non-Federal property owners to implement conservation actions for federally listed species by assuring the landowners that they will not be subjected to increased property use restrictions as a result of their conservation efforts. One of the issuance criteria for a SHA is that it must provide a net conservation benefit for the covered species.
The assurances provided under a SHA and its associated permit allow the property owner to alter or modify the enrolled property to agreed-upon baseline conditions, even if such alteration or modification results in the incidental take of a listed species, provided the obligations in the SHA and the terms and conditions of the permit have been satisfied. The baseline conditions represent the existing levels of use of the property by the species covered in the SHA at the time the SHA is established. The SHA assurances are contingent on the property owner complying with the obligations in the SHA and the terms and conditions of the permit. The SHA's net conservation benefit must be sufficient to contribute, either directly or indirectly, to the recovery of the covered listed species.
Permit application requirements and issuance criteria for SHAs are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.22(c). The Service's Safe Harbor Policy (64 FR 32717, June 17, 1999) and the Safe Harbor Regulations (68 FR 53320, September 10, 2003; and 69 FR 24084, May 3, 2004) are available at
The proposed Roseburg Resources Co. SHA addresses Service access to lands administered by the company in support of implementing the experiment (Service 2013a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Experimental Removal of Barred Owls to Benefit Threatened Spotted Owls. Portland, Oregon) in the Union/Myrtle (Klamath) Study Area in Douglas County, Oregon. The SHA covers about 45,100 acres of Roseburg Resources Co. lands where timber management activities will occur within the treatment portion of the Union/Myrtle (Klamath) Study Area. The entire treatment area covers lands owned by many different landowners. The treatment area includes 49 percent Federal lands, <1 percent State lands, 27 percent private lands not owned by the company, and 24 percent Roseburg Resources Co. lands. If barred owl removal leads to the re-occupancy of currently unoccupied sites by spotted owls on Roseburg Resources Co. lands, some restrictions or limitations on forest management activities on these lands could occur in the absence of the proposed SHA and permit. Activities covered under the SHA in the treatment portion of the study area are routine forest management activities: Timber harvest; road maintenance and construction activities; and rock pit development.
The goal of the Roseburg Resources Co. in participating in this SHA is to continue to manage their Oregon timberlands utilizing forest practices and provide certainty of those forest practices achieving economic, community and stewardship values on a long-term sustained yield basis while meeting State and Federal regulatory requirements. The Roseburg Resources Co. lands within the study area are a critically important part of the company's overall operating plans from both a short-term and long-term perspective with ongoing forest practices and management activities scheduled in accordance with their management plan. Absent a SHA and permit the Roseburg Resources Co. anticipates potential impacts to their operations as the experiment is implemented and maintained, including but not limited to significant changes and fluctuations regarding spotted owl occupancy status of well surveyed sites and areas on or near Roseburg Resources Co. lands in the treatment area after barred owl removal occurs, and potentially short-term regulatory impacts on or near Roseburg Resources Co. lands after barred owl removal in the treatment area occurs.
The purpose of the Roseburg Resources Co.'s participation in the experiment under a SHA is to demonstrate continued good faith cooperation with the Service regarding this recovery action, and to obtain ESA regulatory assurances during and after the experiment period.
To support the experiment, under the SHA the Roseburg Resources Co. will provide the researchers access to the company's lands to survey barred owls within the study area, and to remove barred owls located on Roseburg Resources Co. lands within the treatment portion of the study area. In addition, the Roseburg Resources Co. will defer management activities to support actively nesting spotted owls on any reoccupied, non-baseline spotted owl sites during the nesting season.
The Service proposes to enter into the SHA and to issue a permit to the Roseburg Resources Co. for take of the northern spotted owl caused by covered activities, if permit issuance criteria are met. The permit would have a term of 10 years, and would be effective on the date of issuance.
As a result of the continued monitoring of spotted owls on Roseburg Resources Co. lands as part of ongoing spotted owl surveys conducted under the Northwest Forest Plan Monitoring program, we have robust annual survey data for the area that was used to establish a baseline for the SHA based on the estimated current occupancy status of each spotted owl site. Any spotted owl sites where a response was detected from at least one resident spotted owl between 2014 and present are considered in the baseline for the SHA and would not be subject to take authorization under the SHA and the permit. Based on this approach, there are 30 baseline (
The conservation benefit for the northern spotted owl under the SHA arises from the Roseburg Resources Co.'s contribution to our assessment under the experiment of the efficacy of barred owl removal to the recovery of the spotted owl by their allowing Service access to their roads and lands for barred owl surveys and, within the treatment area, barred owl removal. In the study area landscape of multiple landowners, access to interspersed non-Federal roads and lands for barred owl
The impact of the increase in non-native barred owl populations as they expand in the range of the spotted owls has been identified as one of the primary threats to the continued existence of the spotted owl. The Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl includes Recovery Action 29—“Design and implement large-scale control experiments to assess the effects of barred owl removal on spotted owl site occupancy, reproduction, and survival” (Service 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Spotted Owl (
While the experiment can be conducted without access to non-Federal lands, failure to remove barred owls from portions of the treatment area could reduce the efficiency and weaken the results of the experiment regarding any changes in spotted owl population dynamics resulting from the removal of barred. These circumstances may warrant extending the duration of the experiment to offset these implications. The Service has repeatedly indicated the need to gather this information in a timely manner.
Take of spotted owls under this SHA would likely be in the form of harm from forest operation activities that result in habitat degradation, or harassment from forest management activities that cause disturbance to spotted owls. Incidental take in the form of harassment by disturbance is most likely to occur near previously occupied spotted owl nest sites if they become reoccupied. Harm and harassment could occur during timber operations and management that will continue during the permit term. Covered activities under the SHA are routine timber harvest, road maintenance, and road construction activities, including rock pit development that may disturb spotted owls.
As discussed above, Service access to Roseburg Resources Co. lands provided for under the SHA is important to the efficient and effective completion of the experiment within a reasonable timeframe. Under the SHA, all of the currently occupied spotted owl sites on these lands are within the baseline for the SHA and no take of spotted owls at these sites is would be authorized under the proposed permit. Under the permit, if barred owl removal does allow spotted owls to reoccupy non-baseline sites that are not currently occupied, Roseburg Resources Co. will be allowed to incidentally take these spotted owls during the term of the permit. It is highly unlikely that these sites would ever be reoccupied by spotted owls without the removal of barred owls.
The removal of barred owls on the Union/Myrtle (Klamath) Study Area will end within 10 years. The Service anticipates that, once released from the removal pressure, barred owl populations will rebound to pre-treatment levels within 3 to 5 years. This is likely to result in the loss of the spotted owl newly reoccupied sites. Therefore, any spotted owl occupancy of these sites is likely to be temporary and short-term.
The proposed SHA and permit allow for the incidental take of spotted owls at 33 non-baseline (
The Roseburg Resources Co. is a minor owner on 10 of the 33 baseline sites for the spotted owl, with less than 10 percent of the land ownership and less than 10 percent of the remaining spotted owl nesting/roosting habitat at these sites. Federal lands contain the majority of the remaining spotted owl nesting/roosting habitat on 8 of these sites, while private lands contain the majority of the remaining habitat at 2 of the 10 sites. Most of the Federal lands are in reserve management designations and harvest of spotted owl habitat is not likely. Thus, assuming these 8 non-baseline spotted owl sites are re-occupied by spotted owls, and the Roseburg Resources Co. removed all spotted owl habitat remaining on their lands within these sites under their permit, some of these sites are likely to remain viable as a result of habitat remaining on Federal lands.
On the remaining 23 sites, the Roseburg Resources Co. owns 10 to 62 percent of the land and 11 to 62 percent of remaining spotted owl nesting/roosting habitat. Habitat removal within these nesting and roosting sites could result in loss of habitat suitability leading to take of spotted owls if they reoccupy these sites. To avoid or minimize the take resulting from disturbance and habitat loss associated with timber management activities on their lands, the Roseburg Resources Co. will defer management activities to support nesting spotted owls that may reoccupy non-baseline sites during the nesting and rearing season (March 1 to September 30 of the year). This would allow the spotted owl pairs at these sites to potentially produce young and contribute to the future spotted owl population.
As discussed above, the primary conservation value of the experiment is the information it provides on the efficacy of removal as a tool to manage barred owl populations for the conservation of the spotted owl at the range-wide scale. In the landscape of multiple landowners that exists within the Union/Myrtle (Klamath) Study Area, researcher access to interspersed non-Federal lands for barred owl surveys and removal that is important to the efficient and effective completion of the experiment within a reasonable time frame would be provided under the Roseburg Resources Co. SHA. On that basis, the Service finds that the take of spotted owls on the temporarily reoccupied sites is potentially greatly offset by the value of the information gained from the experiment and its potential contribution to the range-wide
The Service's entering into the proposed SHA and issuance of a permit is a Federal action that triggers the need for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
You may submit comments and materials by one of the methods listed in the
1. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that implementation of the SHA could have on endangered and threatened species;
2. Other reasonable alternatives consistent with the purpose of the proposed SHA as described above, and their associated effects;
3. Measures that would minimize and mitigate potentially adverse effects of the proposed action;
4. Identification of any impacts on the human environment that should have been analyzed in the draft EA pursuant to NEPA;
5. Other plans or projects that might be relevant to this action;
6. The proposed term of the permit and whether the proposed SHA would provide a net conservation benefit to the spotted owl; and
7. Any other information pertinent to evaluating the effects of the proposed action on the human environment.
All comments and materials we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the draft EA, will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at our Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see
We will evaluate the draft SHA, associated documents, and any public comments we receive to determine whether the permit application and the EA meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and NEPA, and their respective implementing regulations. We will also evaluate whether issuance of a permit would comply with section 7(a)(2) of the ESA by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation on the proposed permit action. If we determine that all requirements are met, we will sign the proposed SHA and issue a permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA to the Roseburg Resources Co., for take of the northern spotted owl caused by covered activities in accordance with the terms of the permit and the SHA. We will not make our final decision until after the end of the 30-day public comment period, and until we fully consider all comments and information we receive during the public comment period.
We provide this notice pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA, its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22), and NEPA and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of the Interior.
Notice of revision to a currently approved information collection, (1028-0092).
We (the U.S. Geological Survey) are notifying the public that we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below. To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this ICR. This collection is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2016.
To ensure that your comments on this ICR are considered, OMB must receive them on or before October 31, 2016.
Please submit written comments on this information collection directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior, via email: (
Anthony Martin, National Geospatial Program, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 511, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); 703-648-4542 (phone); or
The National Geospatial Program (NGP) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) contributes funding for the collection of geospatial data which increases the development of
We again invite comments concerning this ICR as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) How to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) How to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us and the OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below:
The Southeast Oregon RAC will hold a public meeting Monday and Tuesday, October 17 and 18, 2016. The meeting begins on Monday at 12 p.m. and ends at 5:00 p.m. The following day, Tuesday, October 18, the meeting will begin at 8 a.m. and end at noon. The agenda will be released online at
The meeting will be held at the Burns BLM offices, 28910 Highway 20 West Hines, OR 97738. The telephone conference line number for the meeting is 1-866-524-6456, Participant Code: 608605.
Larry Moore, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Vale District Office, 100 Oregon Street, Vale, Oregon 97918, (541) 473-6218 or
The Southeast Oregon RAC consists of 15 members chartered and appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Their diverse perspectives are represented in commodity, conservation, and general interests. They provide advice to BLM and Forest Service resource managers
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of filing of plats of survey.
The plats of survey described below are scheduled to be officially filed in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Santa Fe, New Mexico, thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this publication.
These plats will be available for inspection in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Copies may be obtained from this office upon payment. Contact Carlos Martinez at 505-954-2096, or by email at
The Supplemental plat, representing the dependent resurvey in Township 9 South, Range 30 East, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted June 28, 2016 for Group, 1178, NM.
The plat, representing the dependent resurvey in Township 19 North, Range 11 West, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted July 20, 2016 for Group, 909, NM. The plat, representing the dependent resurvey in Fractional Township 27 North, Range 21 West, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted September 21, 2016 for Group, 1172, NM.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey in Township 14 North, Range 17 West, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted September 21, 2016 for Group, 1175, NM. The plat representing the dependent resurvey in Township 11 North, Range 10 West, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted September 21, 2016 for Group, 1176, NM. The plat representing the dependent resurvey in Township 11 North, Range 6 East, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted September 21, 2016 for Group, 1166, NM. These plats are scheduled for official filing 30 days from the notice of publication in the
A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed and become final or appeals from the dismissal affirmed.
A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these surveys must file a written protest with the Bureau of Land Management New Mexico State Director stating that they wish to protest.
A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the Notice of Protest to the State Director or the statement of reasons must be filed with the State Director within thirty (30) days after the protest is filed.
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), instituted these investigations effective August 11, 2015, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by AK Steel Corporation (West Chester, Ohio), ArcelorMittal USA, LLC (Chicago, Illinois), Nucor Corporation (Charlotte, North Carolina), SSAB Enterprises, LLC (Lisle, Illinois), Steel Dynamics, Inc. (Fort Wayne, Indiana), and United States Steel Corporation (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of hot-rolled steel from Brazil
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on September 26, 2016. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4638 (September 2016), entitled
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) has issued a recommended determination on remedy and bonding in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief, specifically limited exclusion orders and cease and desist orders, against certain table saws incorporating active injury mitigation and components thereof, imported by respondents Robert Bosch Tool Corporation of Mount Prospect, Illinois, and Robert Bosch GmbH of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to Commission regulations.
Robert Needham, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in these investigations. Accordingly, members of the public are invited to file, pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4), submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's recommended determination on remedy and bonding issued in this investigation on September 20, 2016. Comments should address whether issuance of limited exclusion orders and cease and desist orders in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended limited exclusion orders and cease and desist orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended limited exclusion orders and cease and desist orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended limited exclusion orders and cease and desist orders within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the recommended limited exclusion orders and cease and desist orders would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on October 18, 2016.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to rescind the cease and desist orders issued in this investigation and to terminate the investigation with a finding of no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“Section 337”).
Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
This investigation was instituted on April 5, 2012, based upon a complaint filed on behalf of Align Technology, Inc., of San Jose, California (“Align”), on March 1, 2012, as corrected on March 22, 2012. 77 FR 20648 (April 5, 2012). The complaint alleged violations of Section 337 in the sale for importation, importation, or sale within the United States after importation of certain digital models, digital data, and treatment plans for use in making incremental dental positioning adjustment appliances, the appliances made therefrom, and methods of making the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,217,325 (“the '325 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,471,511 (“the '511 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,626,666 (“the '666 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,705,863 (“the '863 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,722,880 (“the '880 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,134,874 (“the '874 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,070,487 (the '487 patent”). The notice of institution named as respondents ClearCorrect Pakistan (Private), Ltd. of Lahore, Pakistan (“CCPK”) and ClearCorrect Operating, LLC of Houston, Texas (“CCUS”) (collectively, “the Respondents”). A Commission investigative attorney (“IA”) participated in the investigation.
On May 6, 2013, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued his final initial determination (“ID”), finding a violation of Section 337 with respect to the '325 patent, the '880 patent, the '487 patent, the '511 patent, the '863 patent, and the '874 patent. He found no violation as to the '666 patent. The ALJ recommended the issuance of cease and desist orders directed to the Respondents.
After receiving briefing from the parties and the public, on April 3, 2014, the Commission issued notice of its determination to affirm-in-part, modify-in-part, and reverse-in-part the final ID and to find a violation of Section 337. 79 FR 19640-41 (Apr. 9, 2014). The Commission found a violation of Section 337 with respect to (i) claims 1 and 4-8 of the '863 patent; (ii) claims 1, 3, 7, and 9 of the '666 patent; (iii) claims 1, 3, and 5 of the '487 patent; (iv) claims 21, 30, 31 and 32 of the '325 patent; and (v) claim 1 of the '880 patent. On the same day, the Commission issued an opinion, with a dissenting opinion from Commissioner Johanson, and also issued cease and desist orders directed to CCUS and CCPK. The Commission terminated the investigation.
On May 2, 2014, the Respondents filed a motion to stay the cease and desist orders pending appeal. On May 14, 2014, Complainant Align and the IA filed responses in opposition. On June 2, 2014, the Commission issued a notice and order granting the motion.
ClearCorrect and Align each took appeals of the Commission's determination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In ClearCorrect's appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the Commission's decision that the electronic transmission of the digital models could constitute an imported “article” within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. 1337, and remanded the case to the Commission.
In Align's appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the case to the Commission “for further proceedings in light of” the
In view of the foregoing final decisions of the Federal Circuit, the Commission has determined to rescind the cease and desist orders issued in this investigation. The investigation is terminated with a finding of no violation of section 337.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Justice.
Meeting notice.
The purpose of this notice is to announce a meeting of the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council (Council) created by the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Act of 1998 (Compact). Thus far, the Federal Government and 30 states are parties to the Compact which governs the exchange of criminal history records for licensing, employment, and similar purposes. The Compact also provides a legal framework for the establishment of a cooperative federal-state system to exchange such records.
The United States Attorney General appointed 15 persons from state and federal agencies to serve on the Council. The Council will prescribe system rules and procedures for the effective and proper operation of the Interstate Identification Index system for noncriminal justice purposes.
Matters for discussion are expected to include:
The meeting will be open to the public on a first-come, first-seated basis. Any member of the public wishing to file a written statement with the Council or wishing to address this session of the Council should notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Compact Officer, Mrs. Chasity S. Anderson at (304) 625-2803, at least 24 hours prior to the start of the session. The notification should contain the individual's name and corporate designation, consumer affiliation, or government designation, along with a short statement describing the topic to be addressed and the time needed for the presentation. Individuals will ordinarily be allowed up to 15 minutes to present a topic.
The Council will meet in open session from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m., on November 2-3, 2016.
The meeting will take place at the Holiday Inn St. Louis Downtown—Convention Center, 811 North Ninth Street, St. Louis, Missouri, telephone (314) 421-4000.
Inquiries may be addressed to Mrs. Chasity S. Anderson, FBI Compact Officer, Module D3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306, telephone (304) 625-2803, facsimile (304) 625-2868.
On September 21, 2016, a proposed consent decree was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Utah in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed this lawsuit against Atlantic Richfield Company (“Atlantic Richfield”) pursuant to Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9607. The United States' complaint seeks injunctive relief and the recovery of past and future response costs incurred and to be incurred at the International Smelting and Refining Site (the “Site”) in Tooele County, Utah. The proposed consent decree requires Atlantic Richfield to pay $560,000 in past response costs, pay future oversight costs, and undertake certain operation and maintenance activities at the Site.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $9.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
On September 22, 2016, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States
The United States filed this lawsuit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). The United States' complaint seeks recovery of costs incurred and to be incurred by the Environmental Protection Agency in connection with the removal of hazardous substances at the Tank Car Corporation of America Site, a former railroad and tank car rehabilitation facility in Oreland, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The consent decree requires Tank Car Corporation of America to assign its rights to proceeds under its insurance policies to the United States. In return, the United States agrees not to sue Tank Car Corporation of America under sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $8.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to announce the annual list of labor surplus areas for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017.
The annual list of labor surplus areas is effective October 1, 2016, for all states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
Samuel Wright, Office of Workforce Investment, Employment and Training Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room C-4514, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 693-2870 (This is not a toll-free number) or email
The Department of Labor's regulations implementing Executive Orders 12073 and 10582 are set forth at 20 CFR part 654, subpart A. These regulations require the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) to classify jurisdictions as labor surplus areas pursuant to the criteria specified in the regulations, and to publish annually a list of labor surplus areas. Pursuant to those regulations, ETA is hereby publishing the annual list of labor surplus areas. In addition, the regulations provide exceptional circumstance criteria for classifying labor surplus areas when catastrophic events, such as natural disasters, plant closings, and contract cancellations are expected to have a long-term impact on labor market area conditions, discounting temporary or seasonal factors.
A Labor Surplus Area (LSA) is a civil jurisdiction that has a civilian average annual unemployment rate during the previous two calendar years of 20 percent or more above the average annual civilian unemployment rate for all states during the same 24-month reference period. ETA uses only official unemployment estimates provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in making these classifications. The average unemployment rate for all states includes data for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. LSA classification criteria stipulate a civil jurisdiction must have a “floor unemployment rate” of 6.0% or higher to be classified a LSA. Any civil jurisdiction that has a “ceiling unemployment rate” of 10% or higher is classified a LSA.
Civil jurisdictions are defined as follows:
1. A city of at least 25,000 population on the basis of the most recently available estimates from the Bureau of the Census; or
2. A town or township in the States of Michigan, New Jersey, New York, or Pennsylvania of 25,000 or more population and which possess powers and functions similar to those of cities; or
3. All counties, except for the following:
(a) Those counties which contain any type of civil jurisdictions defined in “1” or “2” above,
(b) a county in the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island; or
4. A “balance of county” consisting of a county less any component cities and townships identified in “1” or “2” above; or
5. A county equivalent which is a town in the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, or a municipio in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The Department of Labor (DOL) issues the LSA list on a fiscal year basis. The list becomes effective each October 1, and remains in effect through the following September 30. The reference period used in preparing the current list was January 2014 through December 2015. The national average unemployment rate (including Puerto Rico) during this period was rounded to 5.77 percent. Twenty percent higher than the national unemployment rate during this period is 6.93 percent. Therefore, areas included on the FY 2017 LSA list had a rounded unemployment rate for the reference period of 6.93 percent or higher. To ensure that all areas classified as labor surplus meet the requirements, when a city is part of a county and meets the unemployment qualifier as a LSA, that
The classification procedures also provide criteria for the designation of LSAs under exceptional circumstances criteria. These procedures permit the regular classification criteria to be waived when an area experiences a significant increase in unemployment which is not temporary or seasonal and which was not reflected in the data for the 2-year reference period. Under the program's exceptional circumstance procedures, LSA classifications can be made for civil jurisdictions, Metropolitan Statistical Areas or Combined Statistical Areas, as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. In order for an area to be classified as a LSA under the exceptional circumstance criteria, the state workforce agency must submit a petition requesting such classification to the Department of Labor's ETA. The current criteria for an exceptional circumstance classification are,
(1) An area's unemployment rate is at least 6.93 percent for each of the three most recent months;
(2) a projected unemployment rate of at least 6.93 percent for each of the next 12 months; and
(3) documentation that the exceptional circumstance event has occurred. The state workforce agency may file petitions on behalf of civil jurisdictions, Metropolitan Statistical Areas, or Micropolitan Statistical Areas.
The addresses of state workforce agencies are available on the ETA Web site at:
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand the scope of recognition for SGS North America, Inc., as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on September 29, 2016.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of SGS North America, Inc. (SGS), as an NRTL. SGS's expansion covers the addition of three (3) recognized testing and certification sites and thirty-nine (39) recognized testing standards to its NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
SGS submitted four applications, two dated September 24, 2014 (OSHA-2006-0040-0025), and two dated October 1, 2014 (OSHA-2006-0040-0026 and OSHA-2006-0040-0028), to expand its recognition to include the addition of three recognized testing and certification sites located at: SGS Tecnos S.A., C/. Trespaderne 29, Edificio Barajas 1, 28042 Madrid—Spain; SGS Fimko, Ltd., Sarkiniementie 3, FI-00210 Helsinki, Finland; and SGS Baseefa Limited, Rockhead Business Park, Staden Lane, Buxton SK17 9RZ, United Kingdom. Amendments to the October 1, 2014, applications were received on January 14, 2015 (OSHA-2006-0040-0027), and June 16, 2016 (OSHA-2006-0040-0029). These applications additionally requested the addition of forty-nine (49) additional test standards to SGS's scope of recognition, in addition to the three testing and certification sites. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application and other pertinent information. OSHA staff also performed on-site reviews of SGS's testing and certification facilities on August 5, 2015, at SGS Madrid; on August 13, 2015, at SGS Baseefa; and on August 17, 2015, at SGS Fimko and recommended expansion of SGS's recognition to include these three (3) testing sites and 39 of the 49 requested test standards.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing SGS's expansion applications in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the SGS's application, go to
OSHA staff examined SGS's expansion applications, conducted detailed on-site assessments, and examined other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that SGS meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitations and conditions listed below.
OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant this expansion to SGS's scope of recognition to include three additional test sites. OSHA limits the expansion of SGS's recognition to include the sites at SGS Madrid, Madrid, Spain; SGS Fimko, Helsinki, Finland; and SGS Baseefa, Buxton, United Kingdom as listed above. OSHA's recognition of these sites limits SGS to performing product testing and certifications only to the test standards for which the site has the proper capability and programs, and for test standards in SGS's scope of recognition. This limitation is consistent with the recognition that OSHA grants to other NRTLs that operate multiple sites.
Additionally, OSHA is proceeding with this final notice to grant SGS's scope to recognition to include thirty-nine additional test standards to its scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of SGS's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standards listed in Table 1 below.
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, an NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standards listed above as American National Standards. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, SGS also must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. SGS must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as an NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. SGS must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. SGS must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on SGS's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the recognition of SGS, subject to the limitations and conditions specified above.
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Signed at Washington, DC, on September 26, 2016.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Welding, Cutting, and Brazing Standard (29 CFR part 1910, subpart Q).
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by November 28, 2016.
Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The information collected is used by employers and workers whenever welding, cutting and brazing are performed. The purpose of the information is to ensure that employers evaluate hazards associated with welding and ensure that adequate measures are taken to make the process safe.
Section 1910.255(e) requires that a periodic inspection of resistance welding equipment be made by qualified maintenance personnel, and that a certification record be generated and maintained. The certification shall include the date of the inspection, the signature of the person who performed the inspection and the serial number, or other identifier, for the equipment inspected. The record shall be made available to an OSHA inspector upon request. The maintenance inspection ensures that welding equipment is in safe operating condition while the maintenance record provides evidence to workers and Agency compliance officers that employers performed the required inspections.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
The Agency requests an adjustment increase of 97 burden hours (from 5,635 burden hours to 5,732 burden hours) associated with the collection of information in the Welding, Cutting, and Brazing Standard. OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Standard.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please conta ct the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements contained in the proposed Conflict of Interest (COI) and Disclosure Form, which will be used to determine whether or not a conflict of interest exists for a potential peer review panel member.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by November 28, 2016.
Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
OSHA conducts peer reviews to review a draft product for quality by specialists in the field who were not involved in producing the draft. The selection of participants in a peer review is based on expertise, with due consideration of independence. The Office of Management and Budget published the Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review on December 15, 2004. The Bulletin states “. . . the agency must address reviewers' potential conflicts of interest (including those stemming from ties to regulated businesses and other stakeholders) and independence from the agency.” The Bulletin requires agencies to adopt or adapt the committee selection policies employed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) when selecting peer reviewers who are not Government employees. To fulfill this requirement, OSHA has developed a Conflict of Interest (COI) and Disclosure Form, based on NAS' Conflict of Interest Disclosure form. This form will be used to determine whether or not a conflict exists for a potential peer review panel member.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
There are no changes in burden hours from the previous Information Collection Request for obtaining the necessary background information and disclosure of conflict of interest information to ensure that invited experts are not compromised. There are no costs as discussed under Item 13 of the Supporting Statement.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirement contained in the Aerial Lifts Standard. The only information collection requirement in the Aerial Lifts Standard is a certification provision, paragraph (a)(2). This provision requires an employer who modifies an aerial lift for a use not intended by the lift manufacturer (“field modified aerial lift”) to obtain from that manufacturer, or an equivalent entity (such as a nationally-recognized laboratory), a written certificate stating that: The modification conforms to the applicable provisions of ANSI A92.2-1969 and OSHA's Aerial Lifts Standard; and the modified aerial lift is at least as safe as it was before modification.
Employers who modify an aerial lift for uses other than those provided by the manufacturer must obtain a certificate from the manufacturer or equivalent entity certifying that the modification is in conformance with applicable American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards and OSHA's Aerial Lifts Standard, and that the equipment is as safe as it was prior to the modification.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by November 28, 2016.
Directorate of Construction, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3468, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2020.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The certification requirement specified in the Aerial Lifts Standard demonstrates that the manufacturer or an equally-qualified entity has assessed a modified aerial lift and found that it was safe for use by, or near, workers; and that it would provide workers with a level of protection at least equivalent to the protection afforded by the lift prior to modification.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for
There is an adjustment decrease of 13 hours as a result of removing the burden hours for an employer to disclose records to an OSHA compliance officer during an inspection, bringing the total burden hours to zero (0). However, while no responses have in fact been received, DOL is using the figure of “10” responses in order to have the ICR comport to regulation 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4)(i), which deems any rule of general applicability to involve at least 10 respondents. The Agency is, therefore, using the above per response burden to maintain a time burden as close as is possible to the actual time of no hours (1 hour).
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand the scope of recognition for Nemko North America, Inc., as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on September 29, 2016.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of Nemko North America, Inc. (NNA), as an NRTL. NNA's expansion covers the addition of one test standard to its scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification of the products.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
NNA submitted an application, dated June 25, 2015 (OSHA-2013-0016-0012), to expand its recognition to include one additional test standard. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing NNA's expansion application in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the NNA's application, go to
OSHA staff examined NNA's expansion application, its capability to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that NNA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitation and conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant NNA's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of NNA's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standard listed in Table 1 below.
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, an NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standards listed above as American National Standards. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, NNA must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. NNA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as an NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. NNA must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. NNA must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on NNA's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of NNA, subject to the limitation and conditions specified above.
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Announcement of ACCSH meeting and request for nominations for membership on ACCSH.
ACCSH will meet November 30-December 1, 2016, in Washington, DC. OSHA also announces the Assistant Secretary of Labor's request for nominations for membership on ACCSH.
Submit (postmark, send, transmit) comments, requests to address the ACCSH meeting, speaker presentations (written or electronic), and requests for special accommodations for the ACCSH meeting, by November 11, 2016.
OSHA will post comments, requests to speak, and speaker presentations, including any personal information provided, without change, at:
ACCSH advises the Secretary of Labor and the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health (Assistant Secretary) in the formulation of standards affecting the construction industry, and on policy matters arising in the administration of the safety and health provisions under the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (Construction Safety Act (CSA)) (40 U.S.C. 3701
• Assistant Secretary's Agency update and remarks;
• Directorate of Construction update;
• ACCSH's consideration of, and recommendation on, the following proposals:
• NIOSH update;
• Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management update;
• Discussion on ACCSH Workgroups;
• National Safety Stand-Down update; and,
• Public Comment Period.
• The amount of time requested to speak;
• The interest you represent (
• A brief outline of your presentation.
PowerPoint presentations and other electronic materials must be compatible with PowerPoint 2010 and other Microsoft Office 2010 formats.
Alternately, at the ACCSH meeting, you may request to address ACCSH briefly by signing the public-comment request sheet and listing the topic(s) you will address. You also must provide 20 hard copies of any materials, written or electronic, you want to present to ACCSH.
The ACCSH Chair may grant requests to address ACCSH as time and circumstances permit.
The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health (Assistant Secretary) invites interested persons to submit nominations for membership on ACCSH.
ACCSH operates in accordance with the CSA, the OSH Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2), and regulations issued pursuant to those statutes (29 CFR part 1912, 41 CFR part 102-3). ACCSH generally meets two to four times a year.
The categories of ACCSH membership, and the number of new members to be appointed to replace members whose terms will expire, are:
• Five members who are qualified by experience and affiliation to present the viewpoint of employers in the construction industry—three employer representatives will be appointed;
• Five members who are similarly qualified to present the viewpoint of employees in the construction industry—three employee representatives will be appointed;
• Two representatives of State safety and health agencies—one representative from a State safety and health agency will be appointed;
• Two public members, qualified by knowledge and experience to make a useful contribution to the work of ACCSH, such as those who have professional or technical experience and competence with occupational safety and health in the construction industry—one public representative will be appointed; and
• One representative designated by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and appointed by the Secretary—no new appointment will be made.
The Department of Labor is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks broad-based and diverse ACCSH membership. Any interested person or organization may nominate one or more individuals for membership on ACCSH. Interested persons also are invited and encouraged to submit statements in support of nominees.
• Nominee's contact information and current employment or position;
• Nominee's résumé or curriculum vitae, including prior membership on ACCSH and other relevant organizations and associations;
• Category of membership (employer, employee, public, State safety and health agency) that the nominee is qualified to represent;
• A summary of the background, experience, and qualifications that addresses the nominee's suitability for each of the nominated membership categories;
• Articles or other documents the nominee has authored that indicate the nominee's knowledge, experience, and expertise in occupational safety and health, particularly as it pertains to the construction industry; and
• A statement that the nominee is aware of the nomination, is willing to regularly attend and participate in ACCSH meetings, and has no conflicts of interest that would preclude membership on ACCSH.
The OSHA Docket Office will post all submissions, including personal information provided, in the docket without change. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers and birthdates. Guidance on submitting nominations and supporting materials is available on-line at:
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice under the authority granted by 29 U.S.C. 656; 40 U.S.C. 3704; 5 U.S.C. App. 2; 29 CFR parts 1911 and 1912; 41 CFR 102-3; and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by November 28, 2016.
Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
Under Section 21 of the OSH Act, the OSHA Training Institute (the “Institute”) provides basic, intermediate, and advanced training and education in occupational safety and health for state compliance officers, Agency professionals and technical-support personnel, employers, workers, organizations representing workers and employers, educators who develop curricula and teach occupational safety and health courses, and representatives of professional safety and health groups. The Institute provides courses on occupational safety and health at its national training facility in Arlington Heights, Illinois.
Students attending Institute courses complete the one-page Student Data Form (OSHA Form 182) on the first day of class. The form provides information under five major categories titled “Course Information,” “Personal Data,” “Employer Data,” “Emergency Contacts,” and “Student Groups.” The OSHA Directorate of Training and Education (the “Directorate”) compiles, for each fiscal year, the following information from the “Course Information” and “Student Groups” categories: Total student attendance at the Institute; the number of students attending each training course offered by the Institute; and the types of students attending these courses (for example, students from federal or state occupational safety and health agencies). The Directorate uses this information to demonstrate, in an accurate and timely manner, that the Agency is providing the training and worker education mandated by Section 21 of the OSH Act. OSHA also uses this information to evaluate training output, and to make decisions regarding program/course revisions, budget support, and tuition costs.
The Agency uses the information collected under the “Course Information,” “Personal Data,” and “Employer Data” to identify private sector students so that it can collect tuition costs from them or their employers as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701 (“Fees and Charges for Government Services and Things of Value”); Office of Management and Budget Circular A-25 (“User Charges”); and 29 CFR part 1949 (“Directorate of Training and Education, Occupational Safety and Health Administration”). The information in the “Personal Data” and “Emergency Contacts” categories permits OSHA to contact students who are residing in local hotels/motels if an emergency arises at their home or place of employment, and to alert supervisors/alternate contacts of a trainee's injury or illness.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other
The Agency is requesting an adjustment increase of 160 burden hours (from 240 hours to 400 hours) as a result of the increasing number of students attending the Institute from 3,000 to 5,000 students. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in the request for approval to OMB.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Electronic copies of this
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Notice.
This document gives notice of OSHA's approval of a change to the state of Tennessee's occupational safety and health State Plan to include marine construction in its State Plan. Marine construction was previously exempted from the State Plan by the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1972. Therefore, OSHA amends the Tennessee State Plan's coverage to reflect this change in the level of federal enforcement.
For press inquiries, contact Francis Meilinger, Director, Office of Communications, Room N-3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999; email:
For general and technical information, contact Douglas J. Kalinowski, Director, Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs, Room N-3700, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2200; email:
Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 667 (OSH Act), provides that states that wish to assume responsibility for developing and enforcing their own occupational safety and health standards may do so by submitting and obtaining federal approval of a State Plan. State Plan approval occurs in stages that include initial approval under Section 18(c) of the Act and, ultimately, final approval under Section 18(e).
The Tennessee State Plan was initially approved under Section 18(c) of the OSH Act and 29 CFR part 1902 on July 5, 1973. The Tennessee State Plan is administered by the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (TOSHA). On July 22, 1985, OSHA announced the final approval of the Tennessee State Plan pursuant to Section 18(e) and amended Subpart P of 29 CFR part 1952 to reflect the Assistant Secretary's decision (50 FR 29659-01). As a result, OSHA relinquished its concurrent standards and enforcement authority with regard to occupational safety and health issues covered by the Tennessee State Plan.
OSHA retained its authority over safety and health in private sector maritime employment; federal government employers and workers; the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), including USPS employees and contract employees at contractor-operated facilities engaged in USPS mail operations; railroad employment; employment at Tennessee Valley Authority facilities; and on military bases.
Under the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1972, workers protected by the Longshore and Harbor
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. OSHA is issuing this notice under the authority specified by Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 667), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), and 29 CFR parts 1902 and 1953.
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Notice.
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.—App., the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Advisory Council was established as a discretionary advisory committee on June 14, 2016 to serve MCC in a solely advisory capacity and provide insight regarding innovations in infrastructure, technology and sustainability; perceived risks and opportunities in MCC partner countries; new financing mechanisms for developing country contexts; and shared value approaches. The Advisory Council provides a platform for systematic engagement with the private sector and other external stakeholders and contributes to MCC's mission—to reduce poverty through sustainable, economic growth.
For further information, contact Beth Roberts at
Notice.
This notice announces the membership of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB).
Send comments concerning this notice to: National Endowment for the Arts, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20506.
Craig McCord Sr. by telephone at (202) 682-5473 or by email at
4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES Performance Review Boards. The Board shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any response by the senior executive, and make recommendations to the appointing authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.
The following persons have been selected to serve on the Performance Review Board of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA):
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, October 4, 2016
NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594.
The one item is open to the public.
Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.
Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle Hall at (202) 314-6305 or by email at
The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at
Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at
Candi Bing at (202) 314-6403 or by email at
Keith Holloway at (202) 314-6100 or by email at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Application for combined license; withdrawal.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting the Talen Energy request to withdraw its application for a combined license (COL) for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant (BBNPP). This new reactor would be identified as the BBNPP located adjacent to the existing Susquehanna Steam Electric Station in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.
The effective date of the withdrawal is September 22, 2016.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0603 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:
•
•
•
Tomeka Terry,
By letter dated October 10, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML082880580), as supplemented by letters, dated November 18, 2008 and November 24, 2008 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML083250485 and ML083330405) and December 1, 2008 and December 8, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML083400289 and ML083510577), Talen Energy (formerly PPL Bell Bend, LLC), submitted an application to the NRC for a COL for a single unit of the U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor in accordance with the requirements contained in part 52 of title 10 of the
A notice acknowledging receipt and availability of the Talen Energy's COL application was published in the
By letter dated January 9, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14030A074), Talen Energy requested that the NRC suspend the safety review portion of the COL application until further notice, and continue to focus its support on the necessary work leading to the issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The NRC staff issued the FEIS, NUREG-2179, “Environmental Impact Statement for a Combined License (COL) for Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant, Final Report,” on April 21, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16075A311). The NRC granted the requested suspension by letter dated August 12, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14210A588).
By its recent letter dated August 30, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16252A202), Talen Energy requested withdrawal of its BBNPP COL application, including the Safeguards/Security part of the application. Pursuant to the requirements in 10 CFR part 2, the Commission has granted Talen Energy its request to withdraw the BBNPP COL application.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 23, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 23, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 23, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 23, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 23, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
The RRB invites comments on the proposed collection of information to determine (1) the practical utility of the collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to the RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if the RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of the publication date.
Section 2a of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) provides for payments of age and service, disability, and supplemental annuities to qualified employees. An annuity cannot be paid until the employee stops working for a railroad employer. In addition, the age and service employee must relinquish any rights held to such jobs. A disabled employee does not need to relinquish employee rights until attaining Full Retirement Age, or if earlier, when their spouse is awarded a spouse annuity. Benefits become payable after the employee meets certain other
To collect the information needed to help determine an applicant's entitlement to, and the amount of, an employee retirement annuity the RRB uses Forms AA-1, Application for Employee Annuity; AA-1d, Application for Determination of Employee Disability; G-204, Verification of Workers Compensation/Public Disability Benefit Information, and electronic Forms AA-1cert, Application Summary and Certification, and AA-1sum, Application Summary.
The AA-1 application process obtains information from an applicant about their marital history, work history, military service, benefits from other governmental agencies, railroad pensions and Medicare entitlement for either an age and service or disability annuity. An RRB representative interviews the applicant either at a field office, an itinerant point, or by telephone. During the interview, the RRB representative enters the information obtained into an on-line information system. Upon completion of the interview, the on-line information system generates Form AA-1cert, Application Summary and Certification, or Form AA-1sum, Application Summary, a summary of the information that was provided for the applicant to review and approve. Form AA-1cert documents approval using the traditional pen and ink “wet” signature, and Form AA-1sum documents approval using the alternative signature method called Attestation. When the RRB representative is unable to contact the applicant in person or by telephone, for example, the applicant lives in another country, a manual version of Form AA-1 is used.
Form AA-1d,
One response is requested of each respondent. Completion of the forms is required to obtain/retain a benefit.
• Deletion of Item 35a-d from Form AA-1, regarding the relinquishment of seniority rights;
• the relocation of current Items 52-53 from Form AA-1d to proposed Items 48a-b on Form AA-1, regarding whether an applicant had filed or expected to file a lawsuit or claim against a person or company for a personal injury that resulted in the payment of sickness benefits by the RRB, as the potential for uncollected sickness benefits can apply to both a disability applicant as well as an applicant qualified for an age and service annuity.
• Comparable revisions to electronic equivalent forms (AA-1cert and AA-1sum) are also being proposed.
No other changes are proposed.
The burden estimate for the ICR is as follows:
Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Charles Mierzwa, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611-1275 or
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to modify the Exchange's connectivity fees.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule regarding connectivity to the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 4 of the Fee Schedule, Testing and Certification Fees, to state that Member and Non-Member Network Connectivity Testing and Certification Fees will not be assessed for testing and certification of connectivity to the Exchange's disaster recovery systems (for purposes of the Fee Schedule, the “Disaster Recovery Facility”).
The Exchange currently offers various bandwidth alternatives for connectivity to the Exchange's System,
The purpose of the Exchange's proposal not to charge Member and Non-Member network connectivity testing and certification fees for testing required in order to connect to the Disaster Recovery Facility is to eliminate any potential impediment to Members and Non-Members in testing and certifying for connectivity to the Disaster Recovery Facility, and to encourage Members and Non-Members to set up the connections to such Facility for disaster recovery purposes.
The Exchange currently assesses Monthly Member Network Connectivity fees for the applicable connectivity in any month when a Member or Non-Member is credentialed to use any of the MIAX APIs or Market Data feeds in the production environment.
The Exchange proposes to amend the table in Section 5 of the Fee Schedule to explicitly reflect the monthly Member and Non-Member Network connectivity fees as they apply to the Exchange's primary and secondary facilities, and to the Exchange's Disaster Recovery Facility. Under the proposal, fees for connectivity to the Exchange's primary and secondary (
The Exchange is proposing to add new columns to the table in Section 5 with the heading “Disaster Recovery Facility” to set forth the monthly per connection fees for a 1 Gb and 10 Gb connection to the Disaster Recovery Facility. Specifically, the Exchange proposes a monthly per connection Network Connectivity Fee of $500 for each 1 Gb connection to the Disaster Recovery Facility and a monthly per connection Network Connectivity Fee of $2,500 for each 10 Gb connection to the Disaster Recovery Facility for both Members and Non-Members. The Exchange does not propose to offer a 10 Gb ULL connection to the Disaster Recovery Facility at this time; the 10 Gb ULL fees will therefore remain unchanged. The Exchange proposes to amend the tables in Sections 5(a) and (b) to reflect this.
The Exchange believes that the proposed pricing for connectivity to the Disaster Recovery Facility is reflective of the value it will provide to users of the Exchange. The Exchange further believes that the assessment of connectivity fees to the Disaster Recovery Facility will assist the Exchange in recouping some of the costs to the Exchange associated with developing and maintaining this facility for disaster recovery use. Not charging users a testing and certification fee for testing required in order to connect to the Disaster Recovery Facility should encourage Members and Non-Members to connect to such facility. The Exchange notes that other exchanges charge fees for connection to their Disaster Recovery facilities by their market participants.
The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed changes to the Fee Schedule effective as of September 16, 2016.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act because the fees assessed for the connectivity to the Disaster Recovery Facility will allow the Exchange to cover certain of the costs associated with maintaining these Facility for disaster recovery use by users of the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposal to establish fees for the Disaster Recovery Facility connectivity is fair, equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory because the fees are assessed equally among all users according to the bandwidth that such user determines is the best suited for its purposes,
The Exchange believes that the Exchange's decision not to charge Member and Non-Member network connectivity testing and certification fees for testing required in order to connect to the Disaster Recovery Facility is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act because it will encourage Members and Non-Members to set up the connections to such Facility for disaster recovery purposes. Therefore, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable not to charge Members and Non-Members for testing and certification in relation to connecting to the Disaster Recovery Facility.
The Exchange also believes the proposed Disaster Recovery Facility connectivity fees are equitably allocated in that all Members and Non-Members will be charged the same amount to cover the connection costs depending on the speed of the connection as well as the number of connections selected by such user. All Members and Non-Members may subscribe to this connectivity to the Disaster Recovery Facility, and the Exchange is not eliminating any existing connectivity.
The Exchange also believes that its proposal is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange also believes that providing connectivity testing and certification at no cost for the Disaster Recovery Facility is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it is being offered to all MIAX participants at no cost. There is no differentiation among MIAX participants with regard to the testing and certification required to receive the disaster recovery services through the Disaster Recovery Facility.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. On the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes should increase both intermarket and intramarket competition. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the changes will promote competition by offering MIAX participants more flexibility in their choice of disaster recovery services, which will in turn enhance their trading operations and ultimately bring greater efficiency to trading in the marketplace.
As to inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes reflect this competitive environment and may result in enhanced services to a market participant. Given the robust competition among options markets for the services that they each offer to market participants, expanding and thereby enhancing the services available on MIAX is consistent with the goals of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's fees at Rule 7014(f) to: (i) Change the criteria required to receive the rebates provided by the Lead Market Maker (“LMM”) Program; (ii) change the rebates offered by the LMM Program; and (iii) rename the program the Designated Liquidity Provider (“DLP”) Program, as described further below. While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed amendments to be operative on October 3, 2016.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to: (i) Change the criteria required to receive the rebates provided by the LMM Program; (ii) change the rebates offered by the LMM Program; and (iii) rename the program the Designated Liquidity Provider Program.
The LMM Program is designed to provide incentives to market makers to make markets in certain exchange-traded products (“ETPs”). To achieve this goal, Nasdaq provides credits to a designated LMM for execution of a Qualified Security. Under Rule 7014(f)(1), a Qualified Security is defined as an exchange-traded fund or index-linked security listed on Nasdaq pursuant to Nasdaq Rules 5705 (Exchange Traded Funds: Portfolio Depository Receipts and Index Fund Shares), 5710 (Securities Linked to the Performance of Indexes and Commodities, Including Currencies), 5720 (Trust Issued Receipts), 5735 (Managed Fund Shares), or 5745 (NextShares), and it must have at least one LMM.
An LMM is a registered Nasdaq market maker for a Qualified Security that has committed to maintain minimum performance standards. An LMM is selected by Nasdaq based on several factors including, but not limited to, experience with making markets in exchange-traded funds and index-linked securities, adequacy of capital, willingness to promote Nasdaq as a marketplace, issuer preference, operational capacity, support personnel, and history of adherence to Nasdaq rules and securities laws. Nasdaq may limit the number of LMMs in a security, or modify a previously established limit, upon prior written notice to members.
Rule 7014(f)(4) sets forth the criteria required, and the rebates and reduced fees provided, by the LMM Program. Currently, there are three tiers based on the amount of time an LMM is at the national best bid and offer (“NBBO”). Specifically, if an LMM is above 15% to 20% at the NBBO, it qualifies for: (i) A Displayed Liquidity Rebate (for executions $1 per share and above) of $0.0040 per executed share; (ii) a Displayed Liquidity Rebate (for executions less than $1 per share) of $0.0000 per executed share; and (iii) a maximum fee of $0.0005 per executed share for participation in the Halt, Opening, and Closing Crosses.
The Exchange is proposing to amend the rebates and criteria under the program to also take into consideration certain characteristics of the individual ETP.
The purpose of the first change is to amend the criteria required to receive the rebates provided by the LMM Program to better align the behavior required to qualify for rebates with the nature of the rebates provided. Specifically, in lieu of the current criteria, the Exchange is proposing to require all LMMs, which will be renamed DLPs as part of this filing and will be noted as such when discussed below,
The purpose of the second change is to modify the incentives provided by the program. As discussed above, the Exchange currently provides rebates and reduced fees if an LMM meets the minimum criteria of a tier. In lieu of the current incentives, the Exchange is adopting three new incentives that it believes are more targeted to improving market quality in ETPs.
First, the Exchange is proposing to provide Basic Rebates to DLPs that qualify under the proposed “Basic Rebates” criteria of being at the NBBO at least 20% of the time on average in any given month in a particular ETP. The Basic Rebates are available for each of a DLP's assigned ETPs that it qualified for under the performance criteria. The Basic Rebates vary based on the level of ADV the ETP has in a given month. Specifically, a DLP will receive: (i) A rebate of $0.0047 per executed share of displayed liquidity in an ETP that has ADV less than 500,000 during the month; (ii) a rebate of $0.0042 per executed share of displayed liquidity in an ETP that has ADV between 500,000 and 5 million during the month; and (iii) a rebate of $0.0036 per executed share of displayed liquidity in an ETP that has ADV greater than 5 million during the month. Thus, the new rebate schedule takes into consideration the nature of the market in the individual ETP, with the Exchange providing the greatest incentive to DLPs to participate in the program in ETPs that have the lowest volumes.
Second, the Exchange is proposing New Product Support Incentives to incentivize DLPs to support trading in newly-launched ETPs.
Third, the Exchange is proposing Additional Tape C ETP incentives. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to offer DLPs that qualify under the Additional Tape C ETP Incentive criteria three tiers of rebates for each displayed share that adds liquidity in Tape C ETPs that meet the criteria of Rule 7014(f)(1)(A).
The Exchange is also providing a DLP that qualifies under the Additional Tape C ETP Incentive criteria yet has fewer than 10 ETPs assigned to them the ability to qualify for a $0.0001 per share executed rebate in Tape C ETPs that meet the criteria of Rule 7014(f)(1)(A) if it increases the number of ETPs for which it is a DLP by 100%. A DLP is only eligible for the first 100% increase and will not receive additional $0.0001 per share executed rebates for subsequent 100% increases to the number of assigned ETPs. For example, if an existing DLP has three assigned ETPs and thereafter is approved as a DLP for three additional ETPs, the DLP
The purpose of the third change is to change the name of the program. The Lead Market Maker Program had previously been named the Designated Liquidity Provider Program. In 2015, the Exchange changed the name of the program to the Lead Market Maker program and, accordingly, changed references to “Designated Liquidity Providers” and “DLPs” to “Lead Market Makers” and “LMMs,” respectively.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that amending the criteria required for a DLP to be eligible for the rebates by better aligning the behavior required to qualify for rebates with the nature of the rebates provided is reasonable because the Exchange must from time to time assess the effectiveness of the incentives it provides to market participants in return for the beneficial behavior required to receive the incentive. In this case, the Exchange is amending the program to include more targeted incentives and is applying not only the current NBBO-based criteria, but also other measures of beneficial market participation and ETP market quality. Specifically, the Exchange is applying an average daily volume standard to determine if an ETP qualifies for the New Product Support Incentives, which ties the availability of the incentive to a certain relatively low level of ADV thus ensuring that the ETP's market quality needs improvement. As used in the DLP Program, ADV is, for each individual security, the total consolidated volume reported to all consolidated transaction reporting plans by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities during a month divided by the number of trading days during the month.
The Exchange is also applying a measure of average liquidity provided in the DLP's assigned ETPs to qualify for the Additional Tape C ETP Incentives, which requires the DLP to, on average, provide at least 5% of the liquidity provided on Nasdaq in their assigned ETPs. The Exchange believes that the proposed ETP liquidity criteria of the Additional Tape C ETP Incentive tier ensures that the DLP is providing an adequate level of liquidity in an ETP in addition to quoting at the NBBO in all of its assigned ETPs at an average at least 20% of the time in each ETP.
The Exchange believes that the proposed eligibility criteria are an equitable allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will apply the same criteria to all DLPs. The Exchange also believes that the proposed eligibility criteria are an equitable allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory among Exchange members because any member may become a market maker and take the steps necessary to also become a DLP, including meeting the proposed minimum criteria under Rule 7014(f)(4). The DLP Program is limited to Exchange market makers because of their unique role in the markets, including their obligation to provide liquidity in the securities in which they are registered.
The Exchange believes that the proposed new rebates are reasonable because they are better designed to provide incentives to DLPs to improve the market in ETPs that are in need of improved market quality. With respect to the Basic Rebates, the Exchange is providing three tiers of rebates, ranging from $0.0036 to $0.0047 per executed share of displayed liquidity in the ETP. The current Displayed Liquidity Rebate (for executions $1 per share and above) ranges from $0.0040 to $0.0046 per share executed. Thus, the levels of the rebates currently offered and proposed are comparable.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rebates provided under the New Product Support Incentives are reasonable because they provide significant incentive in return for critical support of new ETPs. Generally, new ETPs launch with low volume, yet improve significantly over time. Low volume leads to less liquid markets for participants seeking to transact in these newly-listed securities. Consequently, the Exchange is proposing to provide incentives that decrease over time, beginning with a rebate to qualifying DLPs of $0.0070 during the first twelve months post ETP launch, $0.0065
The Exchange believes that the proposed Additional Tape C ETP rebates are reasonable because they provide additional incentive to DLPs to register in ETPs. Increasing the number of DLPs that any given ETP has will improve market quality in the ETP, since DLPs have performance requirements designed to improve market quality in the assigned ETP. The rebates are tied to the number of ETPs a DLP that meets the proposed eligibility criteria under Rule 7014(f)(4) is assigned, increasing in conjunction with the number of assigned ETPs. Moreover, the Exchange is providing a one-time $0.0001 per executed share rebate in Tape C ETPs to both existing and newly-approved DLPs that have less than ten ETPs assigned, but increase the number of ETPs assigned by 100%. The Exchange believes that this one-time rebate may provide incentive to DLPs to increase the number of ETPs assigned significantly, and also incentivize market makers who are not DLPs to participate in the program thereby promoting greater participation in the program to the benefit of all market participants transacting in the DLP Program ETPs.
The Exchange believes that all of the proposed rebates are an equitable allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will provide the same rebate to all similarly situated DLPs. The Exchange believes that limiting securities eligible for the program to ETPs that are new or have relatively low volumes is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because these securities are the most in need of improved market quality. Moreover, the New Product Support Incentives are reduced over time as the ETP matures and the market in the ETP improves, eventually ending 36 months after the ETPs inception date. Thus, the New Product Support Incentives are of limited duration, with the ETPs eligible for New Product Support Incentives treated like other ETPs of the DLP Program once they reach the 36 month from product inception limit of these incentives. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rebates are an equitable allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory among Exchange members because, as noted above, any member may become an Exchange market maker and take the steps necessary to also become a DLP, including meeting the proposed minimum criteria under Rule 7014(f)(4). As noted above, the DLP Program is limited to Exchange market makers because of their unique role in the markets, including their obligation to provide liquidity in the securities that they are registered in. Thus, the DLP Program is a further extension of the market maker's role in providing liquidity in specific securities.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change in the name of the program and its terminology further perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, promotes public interest because it reverts the program to its long-standing former name and terminology. As noted, the Exchange is making the change in response to industry feedback, which noted a preference for the prior name and terminology, and did not believe that it would be confusing. In support of this last point, the Exchange notes that the rule clearly indicates that it applies to only registered Nasdaq market makers. Thus, the Exchange believes that reverting the name of the program and its terminology is consistent with further perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In this instance, the Exchange is proposing to modify the incentives provided to market makers for participation in the DLP program in an effort to improve the program by providing more targeted incentives to improve market quality in ETPs that are in need of such improvement the most. The Exchange uses incentives, such as the rebates of the DLP program, to incentivize market participants to improve the market. The Exchange must, from time to time, assess the effectiveness of incentives and adjust them when they are not as effective as the Exchange believes they could be. Moreover, the Exchange is ultimately limited in the amount of rebates it may offer. The proposed new criteria and incentives are reflective of such an analysis.
The Exchange notes that participation in the DLP program is entirely voluntary and, to the extent that registered market makers determine that the rebates are not in line with the level of market-improving behavior the Exchange requires, a DLP may elect to deregister as such with no penalty. The Exchange notes that it is raising the minimum criteria required for a DLP to receive a rebate under the program, and thus there is a risk that a DLP may not qualify for any of the incentives under the amended program if it provides the same level market participation.
The Exchange does not believe that the change places an unnecessary burden on competition because the increase in the minimum criteria is relatively small and the level of rebate a DLP may receive is significantly higher in lower volume ETPs under the Basic Rebates. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market makers, it is likely that the Exchange will lose participation in the DLP program as a result. As noted above, the Exchange is continuing to limit eligibility for the program to Exchange market makers. The Exchange believes that Exchange market makers are best positioned to provide market improvement in DLP Program ETPs in light of their unique function in the markets. Moreover, any Exchange member may elect to take the steps necessary to become an Exchange market maker and therefore become eligible for the program if they choose. Thus, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal represents a burden on competition among Exchange members, or that the proposal will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 27, 2016, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Historically, FINRA has utilized TRACE to collect from its members and publicly disseminate information on secondary, over-the-counter transactions in corporate debt securities, Agency Debt Securities,
Currently, FINRA Rule 6750 states that FINRA will not disseminate information on a transaction in a TRACE-Eligible Security that is a Securitized Product, with the following exceptions: An Agency Pass-Through Mortgage-Backed Security, an SBA-Backed ABS, and an Asset-Backed Security.
Under the proposal, depending on the size of the transaction and the number of transactions in the CMO security in a given period, a CMO transaction could be subject to immediate trade-by-trade dissemination or periodic aggregate dissemination, or remain exempt from dissemination entirely. FINRA would immediately disseminate information about a CMO transaction having a value under $1 million (calculated based upon original principal balance of the particular CMO security).
FINRA also proposed to amend FINRA Rule 6730 to reduce the period within which a member must report a CMO transaction executed on or after issuance and to implement a clearer deadline for reporting a CMO transaction executed prior to issuance. Currently, a CMO transaction executed on or after issuance must be reported to TRACE no later than the close of the TRACE system on the date of execution.
The proposal would amend FINRA Rule 7730, which establishes various TRACE data products, to reflect the addition of CMO transactions to the applicable data sets. Currently, the “SP Data Set” for real-time data includes each transaction in a Securitized Product that is publicly disseminated, except for a Rule 144A transaction. Under the proposal, the SP Data Set would be expanded to include any transaction in a CMO security that is disseminated on an immediate trade-by-trade basis or included in a weekly or monthly aggregated report.
FINRA has proposed to amend a provision in FINRA Rule 6730(a) that provides general requirements for reporting Securitized Products to make clear that this provision will apply specifically to CDOs and CMBSs.
FINRA has stated that it would announce the operative date of the proposed rule change in a
The Commission received three comments on the proposed rule change
Another commenter argued that the $1 million threshold is too low to meaningfully improve transparency and suggested that FINRA consider incrementally increasing the threshold in stages until all CMO transactions are disseminated on an immediate trade-by-trade basis.
A third commenter requested that FINRA remove the $1 million threshold entirely, based on a view that the proposed thresholds for dissemination on a trade-by-trade or on a periodic aggregate basis “will create a bifurcated market that will disadvantage the smaller trades that will be disseminated in real-time and small-to-medium sized dealers that more frequently transact in smaller quantities compared to the largest dealers.”
In response to these comments, FINRA stated that it “continues to believe that the $1 million threshold is an appropriate balance between transparency and the risk of decreased liquidity provision.”
One commenter recommended a higher minimum activity level threshold for new-issue CMO transactions to be included in periodic aggregate reports so that dissemination would focus on secondary market activity.
Another commenter suggested that the periodic aggregate reports should include the most recent trade price, as
Two commenters commented on the proposed shortening of the reporting period for CMO transactions executed on or after issuance from end-of-day to within 60 minutes of execution. One commenter supported this aspect of the proposal and stated that, as compared to an even shorter time period considered initially, this reporting period “is a vast improvement for smaller dealers that have fewer operational and trading personnel focused on trade reporting.”
Two commenters expressed their support for the revised reporting timeframe for CMO transactions executed before issuance. One commenter noted that its members strongly support the revised reporting time and that it had requested this change because of resource constraints faced by some small and mid-sized firms that prevent them from actively monitoring all CMO data feeds and thereby knowing if a particular CUSIP has been issued.
Finally, one commenter requested clarification of the definition of “CMO” because the current definition encompasses Ginnie Mae Project Loans, which (according to the commenter) market participants consider agency CMBS, in apparent conflict with FINRA's stated intention that the proposed rule change would apply to CMOs, but not CMBSs or CDOs. This commenter suggested that project loan securities should be outside the scope of the proposed rule change and the definition of “CMO” should be adjusted accordingly.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association.
On numerous occasions, the Commission has stated that price transparency plays a fundamental role in promoting the fairness and efficiency of U.S. capital markets.
The Commission believes that the proposed reduction in reporting times for CMO transactions executed on or after issuance appears reasonably designed to contribute to enhanced price transparency for CMOs. Additionally, the Commission believes that the proposed revision to the reporting period for CMO transactions executed prior to issuance will provide greater clarity to market participants and help promote compliance with applicable reporting rules.
Furthermore, the Commission believes that including CMO transaction data in the various TRACE data sets is reasonable and consistent with the Act. The rules that establish these data sets have been approved by the
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Accel Brands, Inc. (“Accel Brands”) (CIK No. 0001077800) because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2015, and the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission has independently endeavored to determine whether the company is operating and the company has failed to respond to the Commission's inquiry about its operating status. Accel Brands, formerly known as Accelpath, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business listed as National Harbor, Maryland with stock quoted on OTC Link (previously “Pink Sheets”) operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc. under the ticker symbol ACLP.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of Accel Brands.
By the Commission.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 11:30 a.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session, and determined that Commission business required consideration earlier than one week from today. No earlier notice of this Meeting was practicable.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will be:
Institution of injunctive actions; and
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to add to the rules of the Exchange the Tenth Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE LLC”). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to add to the rules of the Exchange the Tenth Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of NYSE LLC (the “Tenth NYSE Operating Agreement”).
In September 2015, the Exchange filed the Eighth Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of NYSE LLC (the “Eighth NYSE Operating Agreement”) as a “rule of the exchange” under Section 3(a)(27) of the Act because NYSE LLC has a wholly-owned subsidiary, NYSE Market (DE), Inc., which owns a majority interest in NYSE Amex Options LLC (“NYSE Amex Options”), a facility of the Exchange.
On July 22, 2016, NYSE LLC filed to amend the Ninth NYSE Operating Agreement to change the process for nominating non-affiliated directors and replace an obsolete reference to NYSE Market (DE), Inc.
The Exchange is accordingly filing to remove the obsolete Ninth NYSE Operating Agreement as a “rule of the exchange” under Section 3(a)(27) of the Act, and replace it with the Tenth NYSE Operating Agreement as a “rule of the exchange” under Section 3(a)(27) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would contribute to the orderly operation of the Exchange and would enable the Exchange to be so organized as to have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act and comply and enforce compliance by its members and persons associated with its members, with the provisions of the Act because, by removing the obsolete Ninth NYSE Operating Agreement and making the Tenth NYSE Operating Agreement a rule of the Exchange, the Exchange would be ensuring that its rules remain consistent with the NYSE LLC operating agreement in effect.
The Exchange notes that, as with the Ninth NYSE Operating Agreement, it would be required to file any changes to the Tenth NYSE Operating Agreement with the Commission as a proposed rule change.
The Exchange also believes that this filing furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned solely with ensuring that the Commission will have the ability to enforce the Act with respect to NYSE Amex Options and its direct and indirect parent entities.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On July 29, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Commission did not receive any comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1 and Partial Amendment No. 2.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 49 by removing the current text relating to the Exchange's Emergency Powers and replacing it with new text regarding the Exchange's Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plan, and by moving the text in Exchange Rule 438 regarding Mandatory Testing to Rule 49.
Exchange Rule 49(a) sets forth the Exchange's emergency powers, which grant a qualified Exchange officer the authority to declare an emergency condition with respect to trading on or through the Exchange's systems and facilities of the Exchange, and designates NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) to perform certain functions on behalf of, and at the direction of, the Exchange in the event of an emergency condition. Exchange Rule 49(a) also describes when an Emergency Condition may be declared and defines the terms “emergency” and “qualified Exchange officer.”
Under Exchange Rule 49, once an emergency condition is declared, the Exchange shall halt all trading on its systems and facilities, purge any unexecuted orders as soon as practicable, and prevent those orders from routing to NYSE Arca.
Members and member organizations of the Exchange who wish to trade Exchange-listed securities during an emergency condition are responsible for having a contingency plan for connecting to NYSE Arca.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new business continuity and disaster recovery plans for use on the Disaster Recovery Facility to be maintained by the Exchange. Under the proposed business continuity and disaster recovery plans, if the Exchange trades securities on its Disaster Recovery Facility, then:
1. The 11 Wall Street facilities will not be available for trading.
2. Consistent with the Exchange's business continuity plan, opening and reopening auctions of Exchange-traded securities traded on the Disaster Recovery Facility would be subject to Rule 123D(a)(2)-(6) and closing auctions would be subject to Supplementary Material .10 to Rule 123C.
3. Any unexecuted Exchange-traded securities orders entered into the Exchange's systems prior to commencing trading on the Disaster Recovery Facility would be deemed canceled and would be purged from the Exchange's systems.
4. Member organizations registered as DMMs would not be subject to any DMM obligations or benefits under Exchange rules while securities trade on the Disaster Recovery Facility.
The Disaster Recovery Facility and the revised business continuity and disaster recovery plans would allow the Exchange to no longer designate NYSE Arca as its backup facility but instead operate as a fully electronic exchange on its own facilities under its own trading rules, with its own order book and with quotes and trades publicly reported as quotes and trades of the Exchange, rather than as quotes and trades of NYSE Arca. Member organizations wishing to trade on the Exchange's Disaster Recovery Facility would be responsible for having contingency plans for establishing connectivity to that facility and changing routing instructions for their order entry systems to send bids and offers in Exchange-traded securities to that facility.
The Exchange also proposes to delete certain current Rule 49 text that will be rendered obsolete or unnecessary by the proposal. This text includes certain terms, references to NYSE Arca, limits on the operative period for emergency powers, and notifications to the Commission.
After careful review of the proposal, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and No. 2, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
Under amended Exchange Rule 49, the Exchange would maintain its own Disaster Recovery Facility to continue Exchange operations when necessary without substantial disruption to member organizations. This Disaster Recovery Facility would allow the Exchange to no longer designate NYSE Arca as its backup facility but instead operate as a fully electronic exchange on its own facilities, under its own trading rules, with its own order book and with quotes and trades publicly reported under the Exchange's own reporting symbol. The proposed rule change would also require member organizations to participate in scheduled functional and performance testing of the Exchange's business continuity and disaster recovery plans in the manner and frequency specified by the Exchange, which shall not be less than once every 12 months.
Under the proposal, the Exchange CEO would be authorized to make a determination for the Exchange to trade securities on the Disaster Recovery Facility only when the CEO deems such action to be necessary or appropriate for the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, or for the protection of investors or otherwise in the public interest, due to extraordinary circumstances. The Exchange CEO must notify the Exchange board of directors as soon as feasible if the CEO makes a determination to use the Disaster Recovery Facility.
The Commission believes that the proposal is reasonably designed to permit the Exchange to continue to operate in the event of an emergency by using a secondary data center located in a geographically diverse location to open, trade, and close Exchange-listed securities. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposal is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and to protect investors and the public interest, and the Commission therefore finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange seeks to correct a typographical error in Rule 3.6A.08 related to the Qualification and Registration of Trading Permit Holders and Associated Persons. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.
(additions are
Rule 3.6A. Qualification and Registration of Trading Permit Holders and Associated Persons
(a)-(e) No change.
.01-.07 No change.
.08 (a) An individual Trading Permit Holder or individual associated person who:
(1) is engaged in proprietary trading, market-making and/or effecting transactions on behalf of a broker-dealer is required to register and qualify as a Securities Trader (TD) in WebCRD;
(2) (i) supervises or monitors proprietary trading, market-making and/or brokerage activities for broker-dealers; (ii) supervises or trains those engaged in proprietary trading, market-making and/or effecting transactions on behalf of a broker-dealer, with respect to those activities; and/or (iii) is an officer, partner or director of a Trading Permit Holder or TPH organization is required to register and qualify as a Securities Trader Principal (TP) in WebCRD and satisfy the prerequisite registration and qualification requirements; and
(3) is a Chief Compliance Officer (or performs similar functions) for a Trading Permit Holder or TPH organization that engages in proprietary trading, market-making or effecting transactions on behalf of a broker-dealer is required to register and qualify as a Securities Trader Compliance Officer (CT) in WebCRD and satisfy the prerequisite registration and qualification requirements.
(b) The following sets forth the qualification requirements for each of the required registration categories described in paragraph (a) to Interpretation and Policy .08:
.09 No change.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to correct an inadvertent typographical error in Rule 3.6A.08. The Exchange proposes to make the change so the text properly reflects the intention and practice of Rule 3.6A.08. The typographical error is explained below.
On October 9, 2015, the Exchange filed a rule change to replace the Proprietary Trader (PT) registration category and qualification examination (Series 56) with the Securities Trader (TD) registration category and qualification examination (Series 57). As part of that filing, an inadvertent typographical error was made in the sentence that begins with the two asterisks (**) in Interpretation and Policy .08(b). That sentence incorrectly refers to paragraph (a)(2)(i) in Interpretation and Policy .08. The intention was to reference paragraph (a)(2) in its entirety, not just paragraph (a)(2)(i), as the purpose of the reference is to describe the various types of supervisory authority an individual may have that requires the individual to register and qualify as a Securities Trader Principal (TP). The Exchange is now proposing to amend this error to accurately describe the intention and practice of the rule.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed rule change is consistent with these provisions because it will more accurately describe the intention and practice of the Exchange with respect to registration requirements of Trading Permit Holders. The Exchange believes that having accurate and clear rules is in the best interests of investors and the general public. The proposed rule change is correcting an inadvertent typographical error.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is attempting to correct a typographical error and does not impact the Exchange's existing operations or rules related to registration requirements. The proposed rule change has no impact on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 16, 2016, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
Nasdaq Rule 5735 governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange. Managed Fund Shares are issued by actively managed exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) that do not seek to replicate the performance of a specified index of securities.
Under its current rules, the Exchange must file separate proposals under Section 19(b) of the Act before listing a new series of Managed Fund Shares.
The Exchange's listing standards establish requirements for the various types of assets that may be held in the portfolio of a generically listed, actively managed ETF (“Portfolio”).
Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(A) establishes the criteria applicable to the equity securities included in a Portfolio. Equity securities include the following securities: U.S. Component Stocks, which are defined in Nasdaq Rule 5705; Non-U.S. Component Stocks, which are defined in Nasdaq Rule 5705; Exchange Traded Derivative Securities, which are defined in Nasdaq Rule 5735(c)(6);
Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(A)(i) would require that U.S. Component Stocks (except as mentioned below) meet the following criteria initially and on a continuing basis:
(1) Component stocks (excluding Exchange Traded Derivative Securities and Linked Securities) that in the aggregate account for at least 90% of the equity weight of the Portfolio (excluding Exchange Traded Derivative Securities and Linked Securities) each shall have a minimum market value of at least $75 million;
(2) Component stocks (excluding Exchange Traded Derivative Securities and Linked Securities) that in the aggregate account for at least 70% of the equity weight of the Portfolio (excluding Exchange Traded Derivative Securities and Linked Securities) each shall have a minimum monthly trading volume of 250,000 shares, or minimum notional volume traded per month of $25,000,000, averaged over the previous six months;
(3) The most heavily weighted component stock (excluding Exchange Traded Derivative Securities and Linked Securities) must not exceed 30% of the equity weight of the Portfolio, and, to the extent applicable, the five most heavily weighted component stocks (excluding Exchange Traded Derivative Securities and Linked Securities) must not exceed 65% of the equity weight of the Portfolio;
(4) Where the equity portion of the Portfolio does not include Non-U.S. Component Stocks, the equity portion of the Portfolio shall include a minimum of 13 component stocks; provided, however, that there would be no minimum number of component stocks if (a) one or more series of Exchange Traded Derivative Securities or Linked Securities constitute, at least in part, components underlying a series of Managed Fund Shares, or (b) one or more series of Exchange Traded Derivative Securities or Linked Securities account for 100% of the equity weight of the Portfolio of a series of Managed Fund Shares;
(5) Except as provided in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(A)(i), equity securities in the Portfolio must be U.S. Component Stocks listed on a national securities exchange and must be NMS Stocks as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS; and
(6) American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) may be exchange traded or non-exchange traded, but no more than 10% of the equity weight of the Portfolio shall consist of non-exchange traded ADRs.
Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(A)(ii) requires that Non-U.S. Component Stocks must meet the following criteria initially and on a continuing basis:
(1) Non-U.S. Component Stocks each shall have a minimum market value of at least $100 million;
(2) Non-U.S. Component Stocks each shall have a minimum global monthly trading volume of 250,000 shares, or minimum global notional volume traded per month of $25,000,000, averaged over the last six months;
(3) The most heavily weighted Non-U.S. Component Stock shall not exceed 25% of the equity weight of the Portfolio, and, to the extent applicable, the five most heavily weighted Non-U.S. Component Stocks shall not exceed 60% of the equity weight of the Portfolio;
(4) Where the equity portion of the Portfolio includes Non-U.S. Component Stocks, the equity portion of the Portfolio shall include a minimum of 20 component stocks; provided, however, that there shall be no minimum number of component stocks if (a) one or more series of Exchange Traded Derivative Securities or Linked Securities constitute, at least in part, components underlying a series of Managed Fund Shares, or (b) one or more series of Exchange Traded Derivative Securities or Linked Securities account for 100% of the equity weight of the Portfolio of a series of Managed Fund Shares; and
(5) Each Non-U.S. Component Stock shall be listed and traded on an exchange that has last-sale reporting.
Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(B) establishes criteria for fixed income securities that are included in a Portfolio. Fixed income securities are debt securities
Under Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(B), fixed income securities that are part of a Portfolio must satisfy the following criteria initially and on a continuing basis:
(1) Components that in the aggregate account for at least 75% of the fixed income weight of the Portfolio must each have a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more;
(2) No component fixed-income security (excluding Treasury Securities and GSE Securities) shall represent more than 30% of the fixed income weight of the Portfolio, and the five most heavily weighted fixed income securities in the Portfolio (excluding Treasury Securities and GSE Securities) shall not in the aggregate account for more than 65% of the fixed income weight of the Portfolio;
(3) A Portfolio that includes fixed income securities (excluding exempted securities) shall include a minimum of 13 non-affiliated issuers, provided, however, that there shall be no minimum number of non-affiliated issuers required for fixed income securities if at least 70% of the weight of the Portfolio consists of equity securities as described in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(A);
(4) Component securities that in aggregate account for at least 90% of the fixed income weight of the Portfolio must be: (a) From issuers that are required to file reports pursuant to Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Act; (b) from issuers each of which has a worldwide market value of its outstanding common equity held by non-affiliates of $700 million or more; (c) from issuers each of which has outstanding securities that are notes, bonds, debentures, or evidence of indebtedness having a total remaining principal amount of at least $1 billion; (d) exempted securities as defined in Section 3(a)(12) of the Act; or (e) from issuers that are a government of a foreign country or a political subdivision of a foreign country; and
(5) Non-agency, non-GSE, and privately issued mortgage-related and other asset-backed securities shall not account, in the aggregate, for more than 20% of the weight of the fixed income portion of the Portfolio.
Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(C) provides that a Portfolio may include cash and cash equivalents. Cash equivalents are defined as short-term instruments with maturities of less than three months.
Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(D) establishes listing criteria for the portion of a Portfolio that consists of listed derivatives such as futures, options, and swaps overlying commodities, currencies, financial instruments (
Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(E) establishes a limit on over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives: No more than 20% of the weight of the Portfolio may be invested in OTC derivatives.
Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1)(E) provides that, to the extent that listed or OTC derivatives are used to gain exposure to individual equities and/or fixed income securities, or to indexes of equities and/or fixed income securities, the aggregate gross notional value of such exposure shall meet the criteria set forth in Nasdaq Rules 5735(b)(1)(A) and 5735(b)(1)(B), respectively.
The daily dissemination of a Disclosed Portfolio
The Exchange proposes to add as an initial listing criterion applicable to all Managed Fund Shares (including those that are generically listed) the requirement that Managed Fund Shares have a stated investment objective, which shall be adhered to under “Normal Market Conditions.”
The Exchange proposes to modify a continued listing criterion for all Managed Fund Shares to require that the IIV be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during its Regular Market Session, as defined in Nasdaq Rule 4120(b),
In support of the proposed rule change, the Exchange represents that:
(1) Managed Fund Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under Nasdaq Rule 5735.
(2) The Exchange's surveillance procedures are adequate to continue to properly monitor the trading of the Managed Fund Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules. Specifically, the Exchange intends to utilize its existing surveillance procedures applicable to derivative products, which will include Managed Fund Shares, to monitor trading in the Managed Fund Shares.
(3) Prior to the commencement of trading of a particular series of Managed Fund Shares, the Exchange will inform its Members in an information circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Managed Fund Shares, including procedures for purchases and redemptions of Managed Fund Shares, suitability requirements under Nasdaq Rules 2090A and 2111A, the risks involved in trading the Managed Fund Shares during the Pre-Market and Post-Market Sessions when an updated IIV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated, information regarding the IIV and Disclosed Portfolio, prospectus delivery requirements, and other trading information. In addition, the information circular will disclose that the Managed Fund Shares are subject to various fees and expenses, as described in the registration statement, and will discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. Finally, the information circular will disclose that the NAV for the Managed Fund Shares will be calculated
(4) The issuer of a series of Managed Fund Shares will be required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act for the initial and continued listing of Managed Fund Shares, as provided under the Nasdaq Rule 5600 Series.
(5) On a periodic basis, and no less than annually, the Exchange will review the Managed Fund Shares generically listed and traded on the Exchange under Nasdaq Rule 5735 for compliance with that rule and will provide a report to its Regulatory Oversight Committee presenting the findings of its review.
(6) On a quarterly basis, the Exchange will provide a report to the Commission staff that contains, for each ETF whose shares are generically listed and traded under Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(1): (a) Symbol and date of listing; (b) the number of active authorized participants (“APs”) and a description of any failure by either a fund or an AP to deliver promised baskets of shares, cash, or cash and instruments in connection with creation or redemption orders; and (c) a description of any failure by a fund to comply with Nasdaq Rule 5735.
(7) Prior to listing pursuant to amended Rule 5735(b)(1), an issuer would be required to represent to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by a series of Managed Fund Shares to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Exchange Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If a series of Managed Fund Shares is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under the Nasdaq Rule 5800 Series.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal to amend Nasdaq Rule 5735 to, among other things, adopt generic listing criteria, is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission notes that Nasdaq's proposal is substantively identical to proposals that the Commission recently approved.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On July 29, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Commission did not receive any comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1 and Partial Amendment No. 2.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 49 by removing the current text relating to the Exchange's Emergency Powers and replacing it with new text regarding the Exchange's Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plan, and by moving the text in Exchange Rule 438 regarding Mandatory Testing to Rule 49.
Exchange Rule 49(a) sets forth the Exchange's emergency powers, which grant a qualified Exchange officer the authority to declare an emergency condition with respect to trading on or through the Exchange's systems and facilities of the Exchange, and designates NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) to perform certain functions on behalf of, and at the direction of, the Exchange in the event of an emergency condition. Exchange Rule 49(a) also describes when an Emergency Condition may be declared and defines the terms “emergency” and “qualified Exchange officer.”
Under Exchange Rule 49, once an emergency condition is declared, the Exchange shall halt all trading on its systems and facilities, purge any unexecuted orders as soon as practicable, and prevent those orders from routing to NYSE Arca.
Members and member organizations of the Exchange who wish to trade Exchange-listed securities during an emergency condition are responsible for having a contingency plan for connecting to NYSE Arca.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new business continuity and disaster recovery plans for use on the Disaster Recovery Facility to be maintained by the Exchange. Under the proposed business continuity and disaster recovery plans, if the Exchange trades securities on its Disaster Recovery Facility, then:
The Disaster Recovery Facility and the revised business continuity and disaster recovery plans would allow the Exchange to no longer designate NYSE Arca as its backup facility but instead operate as a fully electronic exchange on its own facilities under its own trading rules, with its own order book and with quotes and trades publicly reported as quotes and trades of the Exchange, rather than as quotes and trades of NYSE Arca. Member organizations wishing to trade on the Exchange's Disaster Recovery Facility would be responsible for having contingency plans for establishing connectivity to that facility and changing routing instructions for their order entry systems to send bids and offers in Exchange-traded securities to that facility.
The Exchange also proposes to delete certain current Rule 49 text that will be rendered obsolete or unnecessary by the proposal. This text includes certain terms, references to NYSE Arca, limits on the operative period for emergency powers, and notifications to the Commission.
After careful review of the proposal, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and No. 2, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
Under amended Exchange Rule 49, the Exchange would maintain its own Disaster Recovery Facility to continue Exchange operations when necessary without substantial disruption to member organizations. This Disaster Recovery Facility would allow the Exchange to no longer designate NYSE Arca as its backup facility but instead operate as a fully electronic exchange on its own facilities, under its own trading rules, with its own order book and with quotes and trades publicly reported under the Exchange's own reporting symbol. The proposed rule change would also require member organizations to participate in scheduled functional and performance testing of the Exchange's business continuity and disaster recovery plans in the manner and frequency specified by the Exchange, which shall not be less than once every 12 months.
Under the proposal, the Exchange CEO would be authorized to make a determination for the Exchange to trade securities on the Disaster Recovery Facility only when the CEO deems such action to be necessary or appropriate for the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, or for the protection of investors or otherwise in the public interest, due to extraordinary circumstances. The Exchange CEO must notify the Exchange board of directors as soon as feasible if the CEO makes a determination to use the Disaster Recovery Facility.
The Commission believes that the proposal is reasonably designed to permit the Exchange to continue to operate in the event of an emergency by using a secondary data center located in a geographically diverse location to open, trade, and close Exchange-listed securities. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposal is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and to protect investors and the public interest, and the Commission therefore finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new rule to clearly prohibit disruptive quoting and trading activity on the Exchange, as further described below. Further the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rules to permit the Exchange to take prompt action to suspend Members or their clients that violate such rule.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is filing this proposal to adopt a new rule to clearly prohibit disruptive quoting and trading activity on the Exchange and to amend Exchange Rules to permit the Exchange to take prompt action to suspend Members or their clients that violate such rule.
As a national securities exchange registered pursuant to Section 6 of the Act, the Exchange is required to be organized and to have the capacity to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated with its members, with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the Exchange's Rules. Further, the Exchange's Rules are required to be “designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade . . . and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.”
The process described above, from the identification of disruptive and potentially manipulative or improper quoting and trading activity to a final resolution of the matter, can often take several years. The Exchange believes that this time period is generally necessary and appropriate to afford the subject Member adequate due process, particularly in complex cases. However, as described below, the Exchange believes that there are certain obvious and uncomplicated cases of disruptive and manipulative behavior or cases where the potential harm to investors is so large that the Exchange should have the authority to initiate an expedited suspension proceeding in order to stop the behavior from continuing on the Exchange.
In recent years, several cases have been brought and resolved by the Exchange and other SROs that involved allegations of wide-spread market manipulation, much of which was ultimately being conducted by foreign persons and entities using relatively rudimentary technology to access the markets and over which the Exchange and other SROs had no direct jurisdiction. In each case, the conduct involved a pattern of disruptive quoting and trading activity indicative of manipulative layering
The following two examples are instructive on the Exchange's rationale for the proposed rule change.
In July 2012, Biremis Corp. (formerly Swift Trade Securities USA, Inc.) (the “Firm”) and its CEO were barred from the industry for, among other things, supervisory violations related to a failure by the Firm to detect and prevent disruptive and allegedly manipulative trading activities, including layering, short sale violations, and anti-money laundering violations.
In September of 2012, Hold Brothers On-Line Investment Services, Inc. (the “Firm”) settled a regulatory action in connection with the Firm's provision of a trading platform, trade software and trade execution, support and clearing services for day traders.
The Exchange also notes the current criminal proceedings that have commenced against Navinder Singh Sarao. Mr. Sarao's allegedly manipulative trading activity, which included forms of layering and spoofing in the futures markets, has been linked as a contributing factor to the “Flash Crash” of 2010, and yet continued through 2015.
The Exchange believes that the activities described in the cases above provide justification for the proposed rule change, which is described below. In addition, while the examples provided are related to the equities market, the Exchange believes that this type of conduct should be prohibited for options as well. The Exchange believes that these patterns of disruptive and allegedly manipulative quoting and trading activity need to be addressed and the product should not limit the action taken by the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 1616, titled “Expedited Client Suspension Proceeding,” to set forth procedures for issuing suspension orders, immediately prohibiting a Member from conducting continued disruptive quoting and trading activity on the Exchange. Importantly, these procedures would also provide the Exchange the authority to order a Member to cease and desist from providing access to the Exchange to a client of the Member that is conducting disruptive quoting and trading activity in violation of proposed Rule 403, which is currently reserved. New Rule 403 would be titled, “Disruptive Quoting and Trading Activity Prohibited.” Under proposed paragraph (a) of Rule 1616, with the prior written authorization of the Chief Regulatory Officer (“CRO”) or such other senior officers as the CRO may designate, the Office of General Counsel or Regulatory Department of the Exchange (such departments generally referred to as the “Exchange” for purposes of proposed Rule 1616) may initiate an expedited suspension proceeding with respect to alleged violations of Rule 403, which is proposed as part of this filing and described in detail below. Proposed paragraph (a) would also set forth the requirements for notice and service of such notice pursuant to the Rule, including the required method of service and the content of notice.
Proposed paragraph (b) of Rule 1616 would govern the appointment of a Hearing Panel as well as potential disqualification or recusal of Hearing Officers. The proposed provision is consistent with existing Exchange Rule 1606(a). The proposed rule provides for a Hearing Officer to be recused in the event he or she has a conflict of interest or bias or other circumstances exist where his or her fairness might reasonably be questioned in accordance with Rules 1616(b)(2). In addition to recusal initiated by such a Hearing Officer, a party to the proceeding will be permitted to file a motion to disqualify a Hearing Officer. However, due to the compressed schedule pursuant to which the process would operate under Rule 1616, the proposed rule would require such motion to be filed no later than 5 days after the announcement of the Hearing Panel and the Exchange's brief in opposition to such motion would be required to be filed no later than 5 days after service thereof. Pursuant to existing Rule 1606(a)(3), any time a person serving on a Panel has a conflict of interest or bias or circumstances otherwise exist where his fairness might be reasonably questioned, the person must withdraw from the Panel. The applicable Hearing Officer shall remove himself or herself and the Panel Chairman may request the Chairman of the Business Conduct Committee select a replacement such that the Hearing Panel still meets the compositional requirements described in Rule 1616(a).
Under paragraph (c) of the proposed Rule, the hearing would be held not later than 15 days after service of the notice initiating the suspension proceeding, unless otherwise extended by the Chairman of the Hearing Panel with the consent of the Parties for good cause shown. In the event of a recusal or disqualification of a Hearing Officer, the hearing shall be held not later than five days after a replacement Hearing Officer is appointed. Proposed paragraph (c) would also govern how the hearing is conducted, including the authority of Hearing Officers, witnesses, additional information that may be required by the Hearing Panel, the requirement that a transcript of the proceeding be created and details related to such transcript, and details regarding the creation and maintenance of the record of the proceeding. Proposed paragraph (c) would also state that if a Respondent fails to appear at a hearing for which it has notice, the allegations in the notice and accompanying declaration may be deemed admitted, and the Hearing Panel may issue a suspension order without further proceedings. Finally, as proposed, if the Exchange fails to appear at a hearing for which it has notice, the Hearing Panel may order that the suspension proceeding be dismissed.
Under paragraph (d) of the proposed Rule, the Hearing Panel would be required to issue a written decision stating whether a suspension order would be imposed. The Hearing Panel would be required to issue the decision not later than 10 days after receipt of the hearing transcript, unless otherwise extended by the Chairman of the Hearing Panel with the consent of the Parties for good cause shown. The Rule would state that a suspension order shall be imposed if the Hearing Panel finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged violation specified in the notice has occurred and that the violative conduct or continuation thereof is likely to result in significant market disruption or other significant harm to investors.
Proposed paragraph (d) would also describe the content, scope and form of a suspension order. As proposed, a suspension order shall be limited to ordering a Respondent to cease and desist from violating proposed Rule 403 and/or to ordering a Respondent to cease and desist from providing access to the Exchange to a client of Respondent that is causing violations of Rule 403. Under the proposed rule, a suspension order shall also set forth the alleged violation and the significant market disruption or other significant harm to investors that is likely to result without the issuance of an order. The order shall describe in reasonable detail the act or acts the Respondent is to take or refrain from taking, and suspend such Respondent unless and until such action is taken or refrained from. Finally, the order shall include the date and hour of its issuance. As proposed, a suspension order would remain effective and enforceable unless modified, set aside, limited, or revoked pursuant to proposed paragraph (e), as described below. Finally, paragraph (d) would require service of the Hearing
Proposed paragraph (e) of Rule 1616 would state that at any time after the Hearing Officers served the Respondent with a suspension order, a Party could apply to the Hearing Panel to have the order modified, set aside, limited, or revoked. If any part of a suspension order is modified, set aside, limited, or revoked, proposed paragraph (e) of Rule 1616 provides the Hearing Panel discretion to leave the cease and desist part of the order in place. For example, if a suspension order suspends Respondent unless and until Respondent ceases and desists providing access to the Exchange to a client of Respondent, and after the order is entered the Respondent complies, the Hearing Panel is permitted to modify the order to lift the suspension portion of the order while keeping in place the cease and desist portion of the order. With its broad modification powers, the Hearing Panel also maintains the discretion to impose conditions upon the removal of a suspension—for example, the Hearing Panel could modify an order to lift the suspension portion of the order in the event a Respondent complies with the cease and desist portion of the order but additionally order that the suspension will be re-imposed if Respondent violates the cease and desist provisions modified order in the future. The Hearing Panel generally would be required to respond to the request in writing within 10 days after receipt of the request. An application to modify, set aside, limit or revoke a suspension order would not stay the effectiveness of the suspension order.
Finally, proposed paragraph (f) would provide that sanctions issued under the proposed Rule 1616 would constitute final and immediately effective disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Exchange, and that the right to have any action under the Rule reviewed by the Commission would be governed by Section 19 of the Act. The filing of an application for review would not stay the effectiveness of a suspension order unless the Commission otherwise ordered.
The Exchange currently has authority to prohibit and take action against manipulative trading activity, including disruptive quoting and trading activity, pursuant to its general market manipulation rules, including Rules 400 and 405. The Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 403, which would more specifically define and prohibit disruptive quoting and trading activity on the Exchange. As noted above, the Exchange proposes to apply the proposed suspension rules to proposed Rule 403.
Proposed Rule 403 would prohibit Members from engaging in or facilitating disruptive quoting and trading activity on the Exchange, as described in proposed Rule 403(a)(i) and (ii), including acting in concert with other persons to effect such activity. The Exchange believes that it is necessary to extend the prohibition to situations when persons are acting in concert to avoid a potential loophole where disruptive quoting and trading activity is simply split between several brokers or customers. The Exchange believes, that with respect to persons acting in concert perpetrating an abusive scheme, it is important that the Exchange have authority to act against the parties perpetrating the abusive scheme, whether it is one person or multiple persons.
To provide proper context for the situations in which the Exchange proposes to utilize its proposed authority, the Exchange believes it is necessary to describe the types of disruptive quoting and trading activity that would cause the Exchange to use its authority. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 403(a)(i) and (ii) providing additional details regarding disruptive quoting and trading activity. Proposed Rule 403(a)(i)(a) describes disruptive quoting and trading activity containing many of the elements indicative of layering. It would describe disruptive quoting and trading activity as a frequent pattern in which the following facts are present: (i) A party enters multiple limit orders on one side of the market at various price levels (the “Displayed Orders”); and (ii) following the entry of the Displayed Orders, the level of supply and demand for the security changes; and (iii) the party enters one or more orders on the opposite side of the market of the Displayed Orders (the “Contra-Side Orders”) that are subsequently executed; and (iv) following the execution of the Contra-Side Orders, the party cancels the Displayed Orders.
Proposed Rule 403(a)(i)(b) describes disruptive quoting and trading activity containing many of the elements indicative of spoofing and would describe disruptive quoting and trading activity as a frequent pattern in which the following facts are present: (i) A party narrows the spread for a security by placing an order inside the national best bid or offer; and (ii) the party then submits an order on the opposite side of the market that executes against another market participant that joined the new inside market established by the order described in proposed 403(a)(i)(b)(i) that narrowed the spread. The Exchange believes that the proposed descriptions of disruptive quoting and trading activity articulated in the rule are consistent with the activities that have been identified and described in the client access cases described above. The Exchange further believes that the proposed descriptions will provide Members with clear descriptions of disruptive quoting and trading activity that will help them to avoid engaging in such activities or allowing their clients to engage in such activities.
The Exchange proposes to make clear in proposed Rule 403(a)(ii), unless otherwise indicated, the descriptions of disruptive quoting and trading activity do not require the facts to occur in a specific order in order for the rule to apply. For instance, with respect to the pattern defined in proposed Rule 403(a)(i)(a) it is of no consequence whether a party first enters Displayed Orders and then Contra-side Orders or vice-versa. However, as proposed, it is required for supply and demand to change following the entry of the Displayed Orders. The Exchange also proposes to make clear that disruptive quoting and trading activity includes a pattern or practice in which some portion of the disruptive quoting and trading activity is conducted on the Exchange and the other portions of the disruptive quoting and trading activity are conducted on one or more other exchanges. The Exchange believes that this authority is necessary to address market participants who would otherwise seek to avoid the prohibitions of the proposed Rule by spreading their activity amongst various execution venues. In sum, proposed Rule 403 coupled with proposed Rule 1616 would provide the Exchange with authority to promptly act to prevent disruptive quoting and trading activity from continuing on the Exchange.
Below is an example of how the proposed rule would operate.
Assume that through its surveillance program, Exchange staff identifies a pattern of potentially disruptive quoting and trading activity. After an initial investigation the Exchange would then contact the Member responsible for the orders that caused the activity to request an explanation of the activity as well as any additional relevant information, including the source of the activity. If the Exchange were to continue to see the same pattern from the same Member and the source of the activity is the same or has been previously identified
The Member would have the opportunity to be heard in front of a Hearing Panel at a hearing to be conducted within 15 days of the notice. If the Hearing Panel determined that the violation alleged in the notice did not occur or that the conduct or its continuation would not have the potential to result in significant market disruption or other significant harm to investors, then the Hearing Panel would dismiss the suspension order proceeding.
If the Hearing Panel determined that the violation alleged in the notice did occur and that the conduct or its continuation is likely to result in significant market disruption or other significant harm to investors, then the Hearing Panel would issue the order including the proposed sanction, ordering the Member to cease providing access to the client at issue and suspending such Member unless and until such action is taken. If such Member wished for the suspension to be lifted because the client ultimately responsible for the activity no longer would be provided access to the Exchange, then such Member could apply to the Hearing Panel to have the order modified, set aside, limited or revoked. The Exchange notes that the issuance of a suspension order would not alter the Exchange's ability to further investigate the matter and/or later sanction the Member pursuant to the Exchange's standard disciplinary process for supervisory violations or other violations of Exchange rules or the Act.
The Exchange reiterates that it already has broad authority to take action against a Member in the event that such Member is engaging in or facilitating disruptive or manipulative trading activity on the Exchange. For the reasons described above, and in light of recent cases like the client access cases described above, as well as other cases currently under investigation, the Exchange believes that it is equally important for the Exchange to have the authority to promptly initiate expedited suspension proceedings against any Member who has demonstrated a clear pattern or practice of disruptive quoting and trading activity, as described above, and to take action including ordering such Member to terminate access to the Exchange to one or more of such Member's clients if such clients are responsible for the activity.
The Exchange recognizes that its proposed authority to issue a suspension order is a powerful measure that should be used very cautiously. Consequently, the proposed rules have been designed to ensure that the proceedings are used to address only the most clear and serious types of disruptive quoting and trading activity and that the interests of Respondents are protected. For example, to ensure that proceedings are used appropriately and that the decision to initiate a proceeding is made only at the highest staff levels, the proposed rules require the CRO or another senior officer of the Exchange to issue written authorization before the Exchange can institute an expedited suspension proceeding. In addition, the rule by its terms is limited to violations of Rules 403, when necessary to protect investors, other Members and the Exchange. The Exchange will initiate disciplinary action for violations of Rule 403, pursuant to Rule 1616. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed expedited suspension provisions described above that provide the opportunity to respond as well as a Hearing Panel determination prior to taking action will ensure that the Exchange would not utilize its authority in the absence of a clear pattern or practice of disruptive quoting and trading activity.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(6) of the Act,
As explained above, the Exchange notes that it has defined the prohibited disruptive quoting and trading activity by modifying the traditional definitions of layering and spoofing
Through this proposal, the Exchange does not intend to modify the definitions of spoofing and layering that have generally been used by the Exchange and other regulators in connection with actions like those cited above. The Exchange believes that the pattern of disruptive and allegedly manipulative quoting and trading activity was widespread across multiple exchanges, and the Exchange, FINRA, and other SROs identified clear patterns of the behavior in 2007 and 2008 in the equities markets.
Further, the Exchange believes that adopting a rule applicable to Options Participants is consistent with the Act because the Exchange believes that this type of behavior should be prohibited for all Members. The type of product should not be the determining factor, rather the behavior which challenges the market structure is the primary concern for the Exchange. While this behavior may not be as prevalent on the options market today, the Exchange does not believe that the possibility of such behavior in the future would not have the same market impact and thereby warrant an expedited process.
The Exchange further believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(7) of the Act,
Further, the Exchange believes that adopting a rule applicable to options is consistent with the Act because the Exchange believes that this type of behavior should be prohibited for all Members. The type of product should not be the determining factor, rather the behavior which challenges the market structure is the primary concern for the Exchange. While this behavior may not be as prevalent on the options market today, the Exchange does not believe that the possibility of such behavior in the future would not have the same market impact and thereby warrant an expedited process.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that each self-regulatory organization should be empowered to regulate trading occurring on its market consistent with the Act and without regard to competitive issues. The Exchange is requesting authority to take appropriate action if necessary for the protection of investors, other Members and the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that it is important for all exchanges to be able to take similar action to enforce their rules against manipulative conduct thereby leaving no exchange prey to such conduct.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes an undue burden on competition, rather this process will provide the Exchange with the necessary means to enforce against violations of manipulative quoting and trading activity in an expedited manner, while providing Members with the necessary due process. The Exchange's proposal would treat all Members in a uniform manner with respect to the type of disciplinary action that would be taken for violations of manipulative quoting and trading activity.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing,
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that Northcreek Mezzanine Fund II, L.P., 312 Walnut Street, Suite 2310 Cincinnati, OH 45202, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Northcreek Mezzanine Fund I, L.P. and Northcreek Mezzanine Fund II, L.P. propose to provide debt and equity financing to Alpha Sintered Metals, LLC, 95 Mason Run Road, Ridgway, PA 15853.
The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(2) of the Regulations because Northcreek Mezzanine Fund I, L.P. is currently invested in Alpha Sintered Metals, LLC and because of its level of ownership, Alpha Sintered Metals, LLC is an Associate. Northcreek Mezzanine Fund I, L.P. and Northcreek Mezzanine Fund II, L.P. are also Associates and are seeking to co-invest in Alpha Sintered Metals, LLC. Therefore this transaction is considered financing an Associate, requiring prior SBA exemption.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the Commonwealth of Kentucky dated 09/22/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14871 B and for economic injury is 14872 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Kentucky, Tennessee.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
On May 4, 2016, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) published a notice in the
Pub. L. 111-358 (2011).
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of Montana, dated 09/20/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 148560.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Montana, Wyoming.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of California, dated 09/22/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 148730.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is California.
CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152 subpart F—
CSXT has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) since the Line is not a through line, no overhead traffic has moved over the Line; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line either is pending before the Surface Transportation Board or any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of a complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the discontinuance shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) to subsidize continued rail service has been received, this exemption will become effective on October 29, 2016 (50 days after the filing of the exemption), unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues and formal expressions of intent to file an OFA to subsidize continued rail service under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2)
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to CSXT's representative: Louis E. Gitomer, 600 Baltimore Ave., Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Notice of submission deadline.
Under this notice, the FAA announces the submission deadline of October 6, 2016, for summer 2017 flight schedules at Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD), John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), and San Francisco International Airport (SFO), in accordance with the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Worldwide Slot Guidelines (WSG). The deadline coincides with the schedule submission deadline for the IATA Slot Conference for the summer 2017 scheduling season.
Schedules must be submitted no later than October 6, 2016.
Schedules may be submitted by mail to the Slot Administration Office, AGC-200, Office of the Chief Counsel, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; facsimile: 202-267-7277; or by email to:
Susan Pfingstler, System Operations Services, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone number: 202-267-6462; email:
The FAA has designated EWR, LAX, ORD, and SFO as IATA Level 2 airports and JFK as an IATA Level 3 airport. The FAA currently limits scheduled operations at JFK by Order until October 27, 2018.
The FAA is primarily concerned about scheduled and other regularly conducted commercial operations during peak hours, but carriers may submit schedule plans for the entire day. At ORD, the peak hours are 0700 to 2100 Central Time (1200 to 0200 UTC), at LAX and SFO from 0600 to 2300 Pacific Time (1300 to 0600 UTC), and at EWR and JFK from 0600 to 2300 Eastern Time (1000 to 0300 UTC). Carriers should submit schedule information in sufficient detail, including, at minimum, the operating carrier, flight number, scheduled time of operation, frequency, and effective dates. IATA standard schedule information format and data elements (Standard Schedules Information Manual or SSIM, Chapter 6) may be used. The WSG provides additional information on schedule submissions and updates at Level 2 and Level 3 airports.
The U.S. summer scheduling season for these airports is from March 26 through October 28, 2017, in recognition of the IATA northern summer period. The FAA understands there may be differences in schedule times due to different U.S. daylight saving time dates and will accommodate these differences to the extent possible.
JFK will have construction in 2017 on Runway 4R/22L for rehabilitation of pavement, widening of certain taxiways, new high speed taxiways, drainage system upgrades, and electrical light
LAX will undergo construction on Runway 7L/25R for runway safety areas and rehabilitation in 2017. Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), the airport operator, will close the runway for approximately four months from January to May 2017. The final dates have not been determined at this time. LAWA conducts monthly meetings on construction updates with FAA local air traffic control and airline representatives. Such meetings may be the best source of project updates and impacts.
The FAA will use hourly runway capacity throughput for the Level 2 airports in its schedule reviews, considering any differences associated with runway construction or other operational factors. The FAA will also review the operational performance metrics at the airports for the summer 2016 scheduling season as additional data become available.
EWR is transitioning from Level 3 limitations under the FAA Order to a Level 2 designation effective with the winter 2016 scheduling season.
Each Level 2 airport also has a separate process adopted by the airport operator for certain types of flights, such as international passenger flights, or at particular terminals or gates. Those processes with the individual airports or terminals will continue separately from and in addition to the FAA review of schedules based on runway capacity. However, in conjunction with the schedule facilitators for terminal operations at those airports, the FAA may consider the need to harmonize terminal and runway availability in the schedule review process.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors meeting
The meeting will be held on October 13, 2016, from 12:00 Noon to 3:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.
This meeting will be open to the public via conference call. Any interested person may call 1-877-422-1931, passcode 2855443940, to listen and participate in this meeting.
Open to the public.
The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.
Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of availability of final Circular.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has placed in the docket and on its Web site guidance in the form of a Circular to assist recipients in complying with various Equal Employment Opportunity regulations and statutes. The purpose of this Circular is to provide recipients of FTA financial assistance with instructions and guidance necessary to carry out the U.S. Department of Transportation's Equal Employment Opportunity regulations. FTA is updating its Equal Employment Opportunity Circular to clarify the requirements for compliance.
For program questions, Anita Heard, Office of Civil Rights, Federal Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room E54-306, Washington, DC 20590, phone: (202) 493-0318, or email,
This notice provides a summary of the final changes to the EEO Circular and responses to comments. The final Circular itself is not included in this notice; instead, an electronic version may be found on FTA's Web site, at
FTA is updating its EEO Circular to clarify what recipients must do to comply with Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 (Federal Transit law), other Federal civil rights statutes, and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations in 49 CFR part 21.
FTA issued a notice of availability of the proposed Circular and a request for comments in the
The Circular is organized topically. Each chapter begins with an introduction and is divided into sections and subsections. The organizational structure includes the text of the guidance, followed by a clearly delineated discussion section (as needed), which provides the means of complying with the law, as well as relevant good practices.
One commenter requested a clarification of items presented as “good practices.” The commenter expressed concern that the good practices might form the basis for a deficiency finding in a future FTA oversight review. To address this concern we added a statement at the beginning of chapter 1: “Good practices, while encouraged, are not requirements. Agencies that do not utilize these practices are not subjecting themselves to findings in oversight reviews.”
One commenter objected to the statement on the cover page of the Circular that states, “FTA reserves the right to update this Circular to reflect changes in other revised or new guidance and regulations that undergo notice and comment, without further notice and comment on this Circular.” This language appears on the cover page of all FTA circulars. In the event a regulatory or other cross-cutting requirement has changed, it has changed with a notice and comment process, so there is no need for a second notice and comment process in order to update the Circular to reflect the change. FTA encourages stakeholders to sign up for email updates on FTA's Web site,
One commenter suggested that FTA should monitor recipients more closely instead of relying on recipients' certification of compliance. FTA conducts reviews of all recipients on a triennial basis, conducts specialized EEO reviews, and investigates complaints. In addition, recipients' employees have the right to file complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Given the remedies available to employees, the large number of FTA recipients, and limited FTA resources, we believe our level of monitoring recipients for compliance is appropriate.
Chapter 1 of the Circular is an introductory chapter that reviews the organization of the Circular, the authority for establishing the Circular, and applicability to recipients.
One commenter suggested we add “disability,” “veteran status,” and “genetic information” to the list of bases on which discrimination is prohibited, and we have added those terms in section 1.2, Organization of this Circular. In section 1.3, Authorities, we have added the Equal Pay Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. In the Definitions section we have made clarifying edits to the terms Complainant, Concentration, Disability, Discrimination, Disparate Impact, Disparate Treatment, Protected Class, and Underutilization. We have added definitions for the terms Four-fifths Rule, Reasonable Accommodation, Retaliation, and Sex-based Discrimination. Finally, we replaced the term Primary Recipient with the term Direct Recipient, and replaced the term One-person Rule with the term Whole-person Rule.
FTA requested comments regarding a potential change to the threshold for Equal Employment Opportunity Program submission from the current standard of recipients with 50 transit-related employees, to recipients with 100 transit-related employees. Commenters supported this threshold increase, and we have adopted the increased threshold in the final Circular. Further, agencies with 50-99 employees will not be required to conduct a utilization analysis with goals and timetables or to submit an EEO Program to FTA. They will instead prepare and maintain an abbreviated EEO Program and provide it to FTA upon request or for any State Management Review or Triennial Review. The Circular does not apply to transit employers with fewer than 50 employees.
One commenter asked FTA to clarify the 100 transit-related employees threshold and to more clearly define what collateral duties include for part-time employees. This information is in section 1.4 of the Circular and in a footnote in that section. When calculating the total number of transit-related employees, agencies are required to include all part-time employees and employees with collateral duties that support the transit program. For example, a budget analyst who processes payments for the transit program would be considered a transit-related employee.
FTA requested comments on potential changes to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between FTA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). We received no comments. The Circular has been revised to reflect that pursuant to an MOU with FHWA, FHWA and FTA will jointly review, monitor, and approve State DOT EEO Programs.
Chapter 2 explains the seven required elements of an EEO Program for FTA review. The chapter details required language, required supporting documentation, the type of analysis that must be conducted, and the acceptable methods to report the results of that analysis.
FTA proposed that EEO Programs be updated and submitted to FTA on a triennial basis or as major changes occur in the workforce or employment conditions. One commenter suggested FTA add the language, “whichever comes first” at the end of the sentence to clarify that FTA requires the EEO Program to be updated at a minimum every three years, or sooner if conditions warrant. We have made that change.
In addition, given that transit agencies must submit data to the EEOC every
FTA proposed removing the following sentence, which appears in the 1988 Circular: “At the discretion of FTA Office of Civil Rights, less information may be requested where the recipient's previously submitted EEO Program has not changed significantly.” Several commenters disagreed with this proposal, asserting a requirement for a full update of an EEO Program when there are no significant changes places an unnecessary burden on small agencies that are in compliance and have limited staff, and is not necessary for agencies with strong EEO Programs or EEO Programs that have not changed significantly. In response to commenters, we have restored that language.
FTA proposed that agencies would be required to update their EEO policy annually or after the naming of a new CEO/GM or EEO Officer. One commenter suggested that if there are no changes to the EEO policy, there would be no need to update it. We revised the language to require a review and update at least every four years, when the EEO Program is submitted to FTA, or after the naming of a new CEO/GM or EEO Officer.
FTA proposed that top management officials would need to meet quarterly to discuss the EEO Program and its implementation. Several commenters objected to this frequency, asserting it would be overly burdensome for the agency, and recommending semiannual or annual meetings would be sufficient. We agreed with those comments and revised the Circular to reflect that the meetings take place at least semiannually.
In this section, FTA proposed that agencies be required to conduct EEO training for all new supervisors or managers within 30 days of their appointment. Two commenters suggested this timeframe should be extended; one suggested the training take place within six months, and one recommended it take place within 90 days. We have revised the Circular to require that training for supervisors and managers be conducted within 90 days of their appointment.
FTA proposed that agencies be required to meet with employees of protected classes and affinity groups to seek input on EEO Program implementation. Two commenters suggested that all employees should be invited to provide input on the program implementation, not just members of protected classes or affinity groups. We have revised the Circular to require meetings with all employees and affinity groups to seek input on EEO Program implementation.
In order to ensure impartiality and independence of the EEO Officer, FTA proposed that the EEO Officer would need to be separated from human resources officials. Several commenters objected to this proposal. The general consensus was that in agencies where the administrative staffs are small, separation of duties is impossible. One agency asserted that to create an EEO position separate from human resources would dilute the department's effectiveness to ensure EEO and legal compliance. Others suggested such a separation would cast concerns on the ability of the human resources department to protect equal employment opportunity. One commenter suggested FTA should not attempt to dictate how individual agencies avoid such conflicts of interest and that there would be substantial costs involved. Another commenter asserted the proposed separation ignored the normal function and role of a human resources department—to be knowledgeable about and enforce labor and employment laws, regulations and workplace rules—and that attempting to carve out functions in a way that is illogical would only serve to confuse all employees in the organization. In response, we have revised this section to state that in order to maintain the independence and integrity of the EEO Officer, it
Similar to the separation of function between EEO and HR, FTA proposed that in order to maintain distance between the investigation of EEO complaints and defense of the agency, that the functional unit that reviews EEO matters be separate and apart from the functional unit that represents the agency in EEO complaints. Several commenters objected to this proposal. One commenter expressed concern about the phrasing of the language, specifically that attorneys rather than EEO Officers would represent an agency at administrative hearings. Another commenter expressed concern that the separation could inhibit a lawyer's ability to provide legal guidance on EEO requirements or could require the creation of two EEO offices, for internal and external complaints. Another commenter stated that the EEO Officer is better suited to report to a legal office because of the need for advice regarding perplexing or difficult EEO matters and the level of expertise needed to navigate the numerous EEO laws, regulations, and court rulings. In response, we clarified that the attorney who provides legal expertise to the EEO Officer in the investigation of a case cannot represent the agency in the same EEO case.
FTA proposed that in order to ensure complaints are investigated effectively, those individuals charged with investigating complaints must have EEO investigative training. Two commenters requested clarification on what would constitute sufficient EEO investigative training for EEO Officers. We have revised the Circular to include the specific information that should be covered in this training.
FTA proposed removing the requirement that EEO Officers concur on hires and promotions. Several commenters objected to this change. They asserted this requirement ensured the EEO Officer was involved in the process. They also suggested the removal of this function would undermine their ability to be part of the process. Two commenters supported the removal of the statement, stating the requirement was overly burdensome. We reinstated the statement and provided a sample concurrence checklist in an Attachment that clarifies what “concurrence” entails.
The utilization analysis is a comparative analysis in which the female and minority availability for each EEO subgroup is compared with the current workforce representation of females and minorities.
There was a concern that “two or more races (not Hispanic or Latino)” is a subcategory that is currently not collected on the EEO-4 forms. OMB approved the change of the EEO-4 categories to be consistent with the EEO-1, including two or more races.
One commenter was concerned that extending to agencies with fewer than 100 transit employees the requirement to complete the FTA's electronic database for analysis and utilization of hires, promotions, and personnel's applications, without additional financial resources, would be extremely burdensome for smaller agencies to complete and track. The commenter urged FTA to consider limiting the FTA analysis and utilization database submittal only to agencies that meet the threshold for the submittal of an EEO Program. In response, we revised the Circular to provide that agencies with 50-99 employees will not be required to submit a full plan to FTA every four years, and will not be required to conduct a utilization analysis.
Two commenters sought clarification on how to track individuals with disabilities and veteran status with no baseline for availability. We have included language in section 2.2.6 that states we are not asking agencies to set a goal for veterans or persons with disabilities based on availability numbers. There is no whole person rule or four-fifths analysis. The agency can set its own specific aspirational goals, but the Circular asks agencies to track raw numbers; for example, the number applied, number hired, number applied for promotion, and number promoted.
One commenter requested clarification on setting department/unit/functional area goals. The Circular states, “Although FTA requires utilization data summarized for each job category, agencies are encouraged to compile workforce statistics for each department, job category, grade/rank of employee (
One commenter asserted that setting long-term and short-term goals and timetables for each individual minority group, broken down by specific racial/ethnic subcategories for men and women, could only be achieved by conducting targeted recruitments, which could be perceived as discriminatory in California under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). FTA did not revise the proposal, as the short-term and long-term goals are aspirational goals based on identified underutilization and the results of the employment practices analysis.
FTA proposed that agencies be required to describe their efforts to locate, qualify, and train employees in protected classes. One commenter asserted all employees, not just employees of a protected class, should be able to receive training and that any action to locate, qualify, and train employees in protected classes could be perceived as discriminatory under FEHA. Certainly all employees should be able to avail themselves of training; the only documentation FTA requires in the EEO Program is those efforts to locate, qualify, and train employees in protected classes.
Another commenter asked for clarification on whether or not test validation documentation is required for all candidate selections. As clarification, test validation is completed per test, not per candidate. The commenter also asked FTA to clarify or remove the requirement that agencies provide a narrative of current seniority policies and procedures for union and non-union workers. We have revised the Circular to provide that agencies must provide a narrative for union and non-union workers if the seniority policies are different. In order to conduct a qualitative assessment of seniority practices to determine any potential disparate impact, a narrative must be provided.
One commenter noted that revising union agreements is a complex process that cannot be done unilaterally by an agency. In response, we revised the Circular to state, “When agencies are negotiating or amending union agreements, FTA requires agencies to review and revise the agreements wherever current provisions are identified as barriers to equal employment.” The commenter further asserted, with regard to disciplinary procedures and termination practices, that it would be unreasonable to require agencies to use the “same” standard for determining when a person will be demoted, disciplined, or laid off in light of collectively bargained-for procedures and practices, and in light of state civil service law provisions governing the appointment, promotion and continuance of employment of certain agency employees (including layoffs). We have not revised the Circular in response to this comment, as the Circular provides for placing employees in similarly situated groupings (
FTA proposed that agencies would be required to evaluate their EEO Programs at least quarterly. Several commenters objected to meeting with management quarterly to discuss the EEO Program and its implementation. They asserted it would be overly burdensome for the agency. We revised the Circular to reflect the evaluation should take place, at a minimum, semiannually.
Some commenters suggested that unit managers should not have access to EEO information and that tracking this information is entirely a human resources function. There was also concern that reviewing this information with all levels of management could breach confidentiality for smaller agencies. The Circular has been revised to say all “program” EEO-related meetings should be discussed. The meetings that are conducted with managers are to discuss the agency's progress in terms of meeting their EEO Program goals and requirements, not to discuss individual EEO complaints.
One commenter questioned whether FTA is requiring the agency to track the agenda and outcome of every single meeting that the EEO Officer has with the CEO/GM, with any management official, and with human resources, with a concern on resource management. We are revising the Circular to provide documentation of meetings where EEO is officially discussed; for example, official EEO training and official meetings with management to report on EEO Program progress and plans of actions. There is no need to document every conversation.
FTA proposed that one element of a successful EEO Program is to, “Produce documentation that supports actions to implement the plan for minority and female job applicants or employees and informs management of the program's effectiveness.” One commenter suggested replacing “for minority and female” with “to improve diversity of.” FTA did not adopt this suggestion. We believe it is important to specifically state “minority and female” as opposed to the more general “improve diversity,” in order to ensure agencies are documenting their efforts appropriately. FTA proposed that one of the EEO Program attachments would be an
FTA sought comment on how long it would take to develop an EEO Program with the requirements set out in chapter 2 of the Circular. FTA also sought suggestions from recipients regarding how to use information technology to decrease the amount of time it takes to develop an EEO Program. One commenter suggested that the Circular has new data collection requirements that will require coordination with departmental units such as human resources and information technology. The commenter sought a 12-month grace period before new statistical data is required. As stated above, FTA will be drafting a new schedule for quadrennial submission of EEO Programs to FTA. FTA will work with agencies that find themselves on the “earlier” side of the schedule and that may need to update their internal practices in order to develop an effective EEO Program.
One commenter requested additional clarity and definition of factors and concerns that may trigger a discretionary review. We revised the Circular to clarify the six factors that contribute to the selection for a civil rights specialized review.
In the proposed Circular, FTA included several Attachments: Attachment 1, References; Attachment 2, Sample EEO Policy Statement; and Attachment 3, Sample Excel Charts. We did not receive comments on any of the Attachments. In response to comments that the EEO Officer should concur in the hiring and promotion process, we have added a new Attachment, Sample Concurrence Checklist. Additionally, we added a copy of the EEO-4 form, Program Submission checklist, EEO Program checklist. The Circular now includes: Attachment 1, Sample Policy Statement; Attachment 2, Sample Concurrence Checklist; Attachment 3, EEO-4 Form; Attachment 4, Sample Employment Practices and Utilization Analysis Excel Charts; Attachment 5, EEO Program Submission Checklist; Attachment 6, Sample EEO Program Checklist; Attachment 7, References.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) and Request for Proposals (RFP).
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is requesting proposals from qualified institutions of higher education to conduct testing, evaluation, and analysis of low or no emission components intended for use in low or no emission transit buses used to provide public transportation. FTA is authorized to pay 50 percent of the established assessment fees, up to $3.0 million annually. A total of $15.0 million is authorized at $3.0 million per year starting in FY 2016 through FY2020 to carry out the Low and No Emission Component Assessment Program (LoNo-CAP). Funds awarded under the LoNo-CAP program will be used to reimburse the cost of assessing eligible components.
Complete proposals must be submitted electronically through the
This announcement is also available at FTA's Web site at:
Marcel Belanger, Bus Testing Program Manager, FTA Office of Research, Demonstration, and Innovation at: (202) 366-0725 or
FTA recognizes that a significant transformation is occurring in the transit bus industry, with the increasing availability and deployment of low and zero emission transit buses for revenue operations. The adoption of these technologically advanced transit buses will allow the country's transportation systems to move toward a cleaner and more energy-efficient future, as described in the U.S. Department of Transportation's recent report,
FTA's goals for LoNo-CAP, in general, are to:
• Provide unbiased assessments of low or no emission vehicle components, documenting (at a minimum) the maintainability, reliability, performance, structural integrity, efficiency, and noise of the tested components
• Increase the quality and lower the overall cost of low or no emission vehicle components
• Expand the supply chain for low or no emission vehicle components
• Increase the deployment of the cleanest and most energy-efficient transit buses into transit agency fleets
• Advance the development of materials, technologies, and safer designs
• Support the development of applicable standards, protocols, and best practices
• Reduce the risk to Transit Vehicle Manufacturers (TVM) of using low or no emission vehicle components from unfamiliar manufacturers
• Complement, not replace, the testing of complete transit buses performed under the FTA Section 5318 Bus Testing Program
• Complement, not replace, existing Federal government testing (
• Continue FTA's legacy of supporting the transit industry in the introduction of advanced technologies to reduce the energy consumption and emissions of transit buses.
Section 5312(h) of Title 49, United States Code, as amended by the FAST Act, authorizes LoNo-CAP. FTA is authorized to competitively select at least one testing facility at an “institution of higher education” as defined in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002) to conduct testing, evaluation, analysis, and reporting of testing results of low or no emission components intended for use in low or no emission transit vehicles. LoNo-CAP will focus on transit buses and provide unbiased information on LoNo components used in those buses. LoNo-CAP differs from the Section 5318 Bus Testing Program in that LoNo-CAP testing is voluntary, it will only test components, and it will not assign passing or failing scores. FTA may select one institution that is able to test all components, or it may select a small number of individual institutions, or a consortium of complementary institutions, each specializing in testing different LoNo components. The FAST Act requires that the institution(s) selected under LoNo-CAP must be separate and distinct from the facility operated and maintained under Section 5318. The low or no emission component testing performed under LoNo-CAP complements the Section 5318 Bus Testing Program, under which FTA will continue to test complete buses as a condition of eligibility for FTA grant funding.
For the purpose of LoNo-CAP, the term “low or no emission component” means an item that is separately installed in and removable from a low or no emission transit bus. Furthermore, the components to be tested under LoNo-CAP should enable or significantly support low or zero emissions transit bus operation. FTA is limiting the LoNo-CAP to assessing components for transit buses due to limited program resources. Compared to transit buses, zero-emission components for transit rail vehicles are technologically mature. Examples of LoNo components for transit buses include, but are not limited, to: Batteries, fuel cells, electric motors and generators, power electronics, battery management systems, air compressors, HVAC systems, gaseous fuel storage systems, and DC/DC converters.
For the purpose of LoNo-CAP, the term “transit bus” means a rubber-tired vehicle used for the provision of public transportation service by or for an FTA recipient. Components for trolley buses powered by overhead wires will be eligible for testing under LoNo-CAP.
All component assessments conducted under the program will be considered public information and the results of LoNo-CAP assessments will be published online and summarized in an annual report to Congress. Private component assessments may be performed by mutual agreement of the parties, but will not receive a subsidy from FTA.
The Federal Government's participation in the cost of component assessments is limited to 50 percent of the established individual component assessment fee, and is further limited to a total of $3 million per year. Any party interested in having an assessment performed can submit a LoNo component to an appropriate FTA-funded facility selected under this announcement and that party will pay the remaining 50 percent of the assessment fee.
A selected institution may use the collected fees to operate and maintain the program to include reasonable equipment maintenance and upkeep of the physical plant. LoNo-CAP funds are not meant to build new infrastructure or enhance existing facilities to add a capability that did not exist at the time of the award, however minor capital equipment purchases may be needed to support the ongoing operations and should be accounted for in the development of the testing fees, subject to FTA approval prior to award.
A total of $15.0 million has been authorized at $3.0 million per year starting in FY 2016 through FY 2020 to carry out LoNo-CAP. Program funds are not eligible to directly cover costs of capital improvements or equipment that a facility does not have at the time of selection. FTA will enter into a grant, contract or cooperative agreement with one or more institutions of higher education for component testing. FTA will fund $3 million per year through FY 2020, dependent on annual performance reviews.
Estimated fiscal funding by year is:
As specified in Section 5312(h), FTA will consider proposals only from “institutions of higher education” as defined in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002). Eligible institution(s) of higher education must have capacity to carry out transportation-related advanced component testing and evaluation, with laboratories capable of testing and evaluation, and direct access to or a partnership with a testing facility capable of emulating real-world circumstances in order to test low or no emission components. The facility operated and maintained under the Section 5318 FTA Bus Testing Program is specifically excluded from eligibility for LoNo-CAP.
Traditional cost sharing or matching is not required for awards resulting from this funding opportunity. Pursuant to Section 5312(h), FTA will pay 50 percent of the established testing fee of low or no emission transit bus components, up to a maximum of $3 million per year for each of FY2016 through FY2020. The remainder of the testing cost will be recovered from fees collected from the entities having the tests performed.
Under the LoNo-CAP, eligible projects are limited to assessments of low or no (LoNo) emission components to be used on low or no transit buses used to provide public transportation. FTA will fund up to 50 percent of the established fees for assessing maintainability, reliability, performance, structural integrity, efficiency and noise. FTA will fund these eligible projects through a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement awarded to the facility(s) selected to perform these assessments. Qualified applicants' proposals must demonstrate current capacity to perform and report on assessments of LoNo transit bus components. As a result, applications must contain the following information in sufficient detail to be eligible for funding consideration:
• Evidence that demonstrates the experience and current capacity to carry
• Evidence that the applicant has a current laboratory or laboratories capable of testing and evaluation that contain appropriate measuring instrumentation, data collection and storage devices, and other equipment, as deemed appropriate by the applicant
• Evidence that applicant has direct access to or a partnership with a testing facility capable of emulating real-world circumstances such as a vehicle test track in order to test low or no emission components
Project proposals must be submitted electronically through
A complete proposal submission consists of a minimum of two forms: The SF424 Mandatory Form and the Supplemental Form. The Supplemental Form must be placed in the attachments section of the SF424 Mandatory Form. Proposers must use the Supplemental Form designated for LoNo-CAP and attach it to the submission in
A proposal submission may contain additional supporting documentation as attachments. If an applicant elects to attach an additional proposal narrative, it must not exceed 10 numbered pages. Submissions must be presentable and use standard fonts, font sizing, and margins so reviewers can easily read the information.
Within 48 hours after submitting an electronic application, the applicant should receive three email messages from
The FTA urges proposers to submit applications at least 72 hours prior to the due date to allow time to receive the validation messages and to correct any problems that may have caused a rejection notification. The FTA will not accept submissions after the stated deadline.
Proposers are encouraged to begin the process of registration on the
Information such as proposer name, Federal amount requested, etc. may be requested in varying degrees of detail on both the SF424 form and Supplemental Form. Proposers must fill in all fields unless stated otherwise on the forms. The Supplemental Form template supports pasting copied text with limited formatting from other documents; applicants should verify that pasted text is fully captured on the Supplemental Form and has not been truncated by the character limits built into the form. Proposers should use both the “Check Package for Errors” and the “Validate Form” validation buttons on both forms to check all required fields on the forms.
The SF424 Mandatory Form and the Supplemental Form will prompt applicants for the required information, including:
Registration can take as little as 3-5 business days, but since there could be unexpected steps or delays (for example, if you need to obtain an Employer Identification Number (EIN)), FTA recommends allowing ample time, up to several weeks, for completion of all steps.
Same day. If requested by phone (1-866-705-5711) DUNS is provided immediately. If your organization does not have one, you will need to go to the Dun & Bradstreet Web site at
Three to five business days or up to two weeks. If you already have an EIN, your SAM registration will take 3-5 business days to process. If you are applying for an EIN please allow up to two weeks. Ensure that your organization is registered with the System for Award Management (SAM). If your organization is not, an authorizing official of your organization must register.
Same day. Complete your AOR (Authorized Organization Representative) profile on
*Same day. The E-Business Point of Contact (E-Biz POC) at your organization must login to
At any time, you can track your AOR status by logging in with your username and password. Login as an Applicant (enter your username & password you obtained in Step 3) using the following link:
Project proposals must be submitted electronically through
Funds under this opportunity cannot be used to reimburse projects for otherwise eligible expenses incurred prior to FTA award of a Grant Agreement, Contract, or Cooperative Agreement unless FTA has issued a “Letter of No Prejudice” for the project before the expenses are incurred.
A technical evaluation panel (TEP) will evaluate all eligible applications based on the applications' responses to information requested in this notice, plus supporting documentation. The TEP will collectively assign a rating to each eligible application using the following ratings: Recommended or Not Recommended.
The TEP will evaluate all eligible proposals received and may seek clarification from any proposer about any ambiguous statement in the proposal. FTA may request additional documentation or information to be considered during the evaluation process, and may conduct pre-selection site visits. After a thorough evaluation of all eligible proposals, the TEP will recommend the selected institution(s) to the FTA Administrator or designee. The FTA Administrator or designee will determine the institution(s) that will receive award(s) under LoNo-CAP through FY 2020, dependent on annual reviews, and in the event that more than one institution is selected, the amount of funding allocated to each.
Applications will be evaluated based on the quality and extent to which the following evaluation criteria are addressed:
Subsequent to an announcement by the FTA Administrator or designee of the final selection(s) posted on the FTA Web site, FTA will publish a list of the selected facility or facilities.
All information submitted as part of or in support of LoNo-CAP shall use publicly available data or data that can be made public and methodologies that are accepted by industry practice and standards, to the extent possible. If the submission includes information the applicant considers to be trade secret or confidential commercial or financial information, the applicant should do the following: (1) Note on the front cover that the submission “Contains Confidential Business Information (CBI)”; (2) mark each affected page “CBI”; and (3) highlight or otherwise denote the CBI portions. FTA protects such information from disclosure to the extent allowed under applicable law. In the event that FTA receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, FTA will follow the procedures described in the U.S. DOT FOIA regulations at 49 CFR 7.17. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under that procedure will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Should FTA receive an order from a court of competent jurisdiction ordering the release of the information, FTA will provide applicant timely notice of such order to allow the applicant the opportunity to challenge such an order. FTA will not challenge a court order on behalf of applicant.
The successful applicant(s) will receive an award through FTA's Transit Award Management System (TrAMS) as either a Cooperative Agreement, Grant Agreement, or Contract, at FTA's discretion. The FTA Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation will manage project agreements. The selected institution(s) will submit itemized quarterly invoices for the tests performed during the previous quarter, and FTA will reimburse the institution(s) for 50 percent of the established testing fees for those tests performed and properly documented. FTA reserves the right to monitor and review awards quarterly to ensure awarded funds are commensurate with level of testing being conducted and amend awarded funds, as needed.
Applicants must sign and submit current Certifications and Assurances before FTA may award funding under a Cooperative Agreement, Grant Agreement, or Contract for a competitively selected project. If the applicant has already submitted the annual Certifications and Assurances for the fiscal year in which the award will be made in TrAMS, they do not need to be resubmitted.
FTA reserves the right to request an adjustment of the project scope and budget of any proposal selected for funding. Such adjustments shall not constitute a material alteration of any aspect of the proposal that influenced the proposal evaluation or decision to fund the project.
Further, FTA reserves the right to name any or all proposed organizational team members as a “Key Partner” and to make any award conditional upon the participation of the “Key Partner.” A “Key Partner” is essential to the project as approved by FTA and, is, therefore, eligible for a noncompetitive award by the project sponsor to provide the goods or services described in the proposal. Participation by members of the “Key Partner” on a selected project may not later be substituted without FTA's approval.
Except as otherwise provided in this NOFO, grants, contracts or cooperative agreements are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5312 as described in the latest FTA Research Circular, currently 6100.1E, “Research, Technical Assistance and Training Program: Application Instructions and Program Management Guidelines.” In particular, the recipient(s) of a LoNo-CAP award must submit quarterly Federal Financial Reports and Milestone Progress Reports in TrAMS.
In order to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the impacts and implications of LoNo-CAP, FTA, or its designated independent evaluator, will require direct access to project data. Projects should include a data capture component that allows for the reliable and consistent collection of information relevant to gauging the impact and outcomes of the component assessments.
At any time during the period of performance, the project team may be requested to coordinate data collection activities in order to provide interim information under the requirements of this award. A project team may be asked to provide the data directly to FTA or to a designated independent evaluator. This information, if requested, will be used to conduct program evaluations during the execution of the project and after it has been completed.
LoNo-CAP awardees may be asked to participate in and/or host transit industry-related information exchange meetings, conferences, webinars, or outreach events at their own expense to share information with the transit industry and stakeholders on the progress and results of component assessments and related impacts.
For further information concerning this NOFO, please contact Research Office staff via email at
The applicant assures that it will comply with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, FTA Circulars, and other Federal administrative requirements in carrying out any project supported by the FTA agreement. The applicant acknowledges that it is under a continuing obligation to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement executed with FTA for its project. The applicant understands that Federal laws, regulations, policies, and administrative practices might be modified from time-to-time and may affect the implementation of the project. The applicant agrees that the most recent Federal requirements will apply to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
NHTSA and FMCSA announce the availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of proposed regulations requiring the installation of vehicle speed limiting devices in new heavy vehicles and maintenance of a maximum speed setting by motor carriers operating affected vehicles. The Draft EA was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA, U.S. DOT Order 5610.1C, NHTSA's NEPA implementing regulations, and FMCSA's NEPA Order 5610.1. Interested persons are invited to comment on the Draft EA.
You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that the docket receives them not later than November 7, 2016.
You may submit comments on the Draft EA, bearing the Federal Docket Management System Docket IDs [NHTSA-2016-0087] or [FMCSA-2014-0083] using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agencies' names and the docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324.
Pursuant to NEPA, NHTSA and FMCSA have prepared a Draft EA analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the agencies' proposed rulemaking regarding the installation and maintenance of speed limiting devices in heavy vehicles.
NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) requires Federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision-making processes by requiring Federal agencies to consider the potential environmental impacts of their proposed actions. In accordance with NEPA, CEQ's regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), U.S. DOT Order 5610.1C, NHTSA's NEPA implementing regulations (49 CFR part 520), and FMCSA's NEPA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680 [Mar. 1, 2004]), NHTSA and FMCSA have prepared a Draft EA to outline the purpose and need for the proposed rulemaking, a reasonable range of alternative actions the agencies could adopt through rulemaking (in particular, the maximum specified speeds under consideration), and the projected environmental impacts of these alternatives.
NHTSA and FMCSA anticipate that the action alternatives will have negligible or no impact on the following resource and impact categories: (1) Topography, geology, and soils; (2) water resources (including wetlands and floodplains); (3) biological resources; (4) resources protected under the Endangered Species Act; (5) historical and archeological resources; (6) farmland resources; (7) environmental justice; and (8) resources protected under 49 U.S.C. 303 (“Section 4(f)” properties). The impact areas that may be affected and were evaluated in the Draft EA include air quality and greenhouse gas emissions; socioeconomics; public health and safety; solid waste; hazardous materials; and fuel savings.
NHTSA and FMCSA invite interested parties to comment on the Draft EA by following the instructions under
Subject to public notice and comment, NHTSA and FMCSA anticipate issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) related to this action.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petition.
General Motors, LLC (GM), has determined that certain model year (MY) 2016-2017 Cadillac CTS, CT6, XTS and Escalade motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S5.5.5(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135,
The closing date for comments on the petition is October 31, 2016.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the
All documents submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
I.
This notice of receipt of GM's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
II.
III.
IV.
S5.5.5 Labeling. (a) Each visual indicator shall display a word or words in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 101 (49 CFR 571.101) and this section, which shall be legible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions when activated. Unless otherwise specified, the words shall have letters not less than 3.2 mm (
V.
In support of its petition, GM submitted the following reasoning:
(a) The park brake applied telltale (identified by the word “PARK”) is red in color contrasted against a black screen, as required by S5.5.5(a) and (d)(4), conspicuously located and readily visible at the top left-of-center position of the instrument panel cluster. Additionally, the four letters of the word “PARK” are all capitalized such
(b) In addition to the park brake applied telltale required by FMVSS No. 135, all of the affected vehicles also have a driver information center (DIC) message “Park Brake Set” that illuminates when the parking brake is applied. The lettering height of this DIC message is 3.24 mm, greater than the 3.2 mm minimum specified for visual indicators in FMVSS No. 135. The DIC message is also substantially wider than the typical width of the telltale required by the standard. The redundant telltale and the DIC message, assure ample communication to the driver that the parking brake is applied.
(c) The operation and performance of the park brake itself is unaffected by this telltale condition. The park brake complies with all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 135.
(d) The NHTSA has previously granted inconsequential treatment for labeling issues across various motor vehicle safety standards, including for discrepancies involving lettering height, missing information, incorrect information, and misplaced or obscured information. For example, two comparable petitions for inconsequential treatment involving brake telltale lettering height were granted to Kia and Hyundai (reference Docket numbers “NHTSA-2004-17439”, Notice 2 and “NHTSA-2004-17439” (sic), Notice 2, published in the
(e) After searching VOQ, TREAD and internal GM databases, GM is not aware of any crashes, injuries, or customer complaints associated with this condition.
(f) GM has corrected this condition in production. All vehicles produced after June 13, 2016, comply with the telltale lettering height specified in FMVSS No. 135.
GM concluded by expressing the belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that GM no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after GM notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8).
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. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Publication 1345, Handbook for Authorized IRS e-file Providers.
Written comments should be received on or before November 28, 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 form and instructions should be directed to Kerry Dennis at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 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.
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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8316, Information Regarding Request for Refund of Social Security Tax Erroneously Withheld on Wages Received by a Nonresident Alien on an F, J, or M Type Visa.
Written comments should be received on or before November 28, 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 form should be directed to Kerry Dennis at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 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.
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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 2006-42, Automatic Consent to Change Certain Elections Relating to the Apportionment of Interest Expense, Research and Experimental Expenditures.
Written comments should be received on or before November 28, 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 revenue procedure should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 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
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of Tribal Consultation.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Health Administration (VHA) will facilitate a Tribal Consultation on the VHA's effort to improve continuity of care and health care access for Veterans by consolidating multiple community care programs, previously known as non-VA care, into one standard program with standard rates. In October 2015, VA submitted to Congress the
Comments must be received by VA on or before November 5, 2016.
Written comments should be submitted by email at
Majed Ibrahim, VA Office of Community Care, VHA at (562) 400-3134 (this is not a toll-free number), or by email at
VA is seeking consultation and comments on the following questions:
(1) What would be the impact of transitioning from the existing reimbursement agreement structure, which requires each tribe to enter into an individual reimbursement agreement with VA, to a standard arrangement for reimbursement of direct care services provided to eligible Veterans managed by a third party administrator for VA?
(2) Would tribal health programs be interested in expanding direct care services under this new structure to include reimbursements for care provided to all Veterans enrolled in VA health care, regardless of whether they are eligible for IHS-funded health care or not?
(3) Would tribal health programs be interested in receiving standard reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates plus a feasible percentage of those rates to minimize improper payments and comply with industry standards?
(4) Would tribal health programs be interested in extending existing reimbursement agreements between VA and tribal health programs through December 2018 and ensuring any new reimbursement agreements between VA and tribal health programs extend through December 2018, as VA works in collaboration with tribes and other VA stakeholders on implementing a consolidated community care program?
Tribal leaders and/or their designated representatives and other interested parties are invited to attend and provide comments during the in-person consultation and/or submit written comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend the electronic reporting requirements for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired electric utility steam generating units (also known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)). This proposed rule would revise and streamline the electronic data reporting requirements of MATS (both for owners or operators of electric utility steam generating units (EGUs) who use performance stack testing and EGU owners or operators who use continuous monitoring to demonstrate compliance) and would increase data transparency. EGU owners or operators would use one familiar electronic reporting system, instead of two separate systems, reducing their burden. In addition, the public and regulatory authorities would have enhanced access to MATS data. Finally, no new continuous monitoring requirements are proposed by this action. Overall, this proposed rule would serve to ease burden, increase MATS data flow and usage, make it easier for inspectors and auditors to assess compliance, and encourage wider use of continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) for MATS compliance.
Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Mr. Barrett Parker, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5635; email address:
The EPA is issuing this proposed rule to streamline the electronic data reporting requirements in MATS; to increase data transparency by making more of the MATS data available in Extensible Markup Language (XML) format; to amend the reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with performance stack tests, particulate matter (PM) and hydrogen chloride (HCl) CEMS, and PM continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS); and to make minor clarifications and corrections to the mercury (Hg) and HCl monitoring provisions, which were brought to our attention following publication of the MATS Technical Correction Rule (see 81 FR 20172, April 6, 2016).
These proposed amendments would revise the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of MATS, in response to concerns raised by the regulated community. Section 63.10031 of the original MATS required affected EGU owners or operators to report MATS emissions and compliance information electronically using two data systems (see 77 FR 9304, February 16, 2012). Paragraph (a) of § 63.10031 required those EGU owners or operators who demonstrate compliance by continuously monitoring Hg and/or HCl and/or hydrogen fluoride (HF) emissions to use the Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) Client Tool to submit monitoring plan information, quality assurance test results, and hourly emissions data in accordance with appendices A and B to subpart UUUUU of 40 CFR part 63. Paragraph (f) of § 63.10031 required performance stack test results, performance evaluations of Hg, HCl, HF, sulfur dioxide (SO
Subsequent to the publication of MATS, stakeholders suggested to the EPA that the electronic reporting burden of MATS could be significantly reduced if all of the required information were reported to one data system instead of two. The stakeholders also suggested that using one data system would benefit the EPA and the public in their review of MATS data, because the information would be reported in a consistent format. In view of these considerations, the stakeholders urged the EPA to consider amending the MATS rule to require all of the data to be reported through the ECMPS, a familiar data system that most EGU owners or operators have been using since 2009 to meet the electronic reporting requirements of the Acid Rain Program.
After careful consideration of the stakeholders' recommendations, the EPA concluded that the increased transparency of the emissions data and the reduction in reporting burden that could be achieved through the use of a single data system are consistent with Agency priorities. As a result, late in 2014 the EPA decided to take the necessary steps to require all of the electronic reports required by MATS to be submitted through the ECMPS Client Tool. Those steps would include revising MATS, modifying the ECMPS Client Tool, creating a detailed set of reporting instructions, and beta testing the modified software. Recognizing that insufficient time was available to complete these tasks before the initial compliance date for MATS (April 16, 2015), the Agency embarked on a two-phased approach to complete them.
The first phase has been completed. The EPA published a final rule requiring EGU owners or operators to suspend temporarily (until April 16, 2017) the use of the CEDRI interface as the means of submitting the reports described in § 63.10031(f) introductory text, (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(4). Instead, EGU owners or operators must use the ECMPS Client Tool to submit Portable Document Format (PDF) versions of these reports on an interim basis (see 80 FR 15510, March 24, 2015). The specific reports to be submitted in PDF format include: Performance stack test reports which must contain enough information to assess compliance and to demonstrate that the testing was done properly (
In the preamble to the March 24, 2015, final rule, the EPA outlined the second phase of the single data system initiative, which would be executed during the interim PDF reporting period. In phase two: (1) The Agency would publish a direct final rule, requiring MATS-affected sources to use the ECMPS Client Tool to submit all required reports in a structured XML format with specific data elements for each type of report; and (2) a detailed set of reporting instructions would be developed and ECMPS would be modified accordingly, in order to receive and process the data.
The EPA has been working diligently to compile the required data elements, to develop reporting instructions, and to prepare program modifications; however, after considering the magnitude of the rule changes that would be required to execute phase two, coupled with the need to specify data elements to be reported electronically for PM CEMS, PM CPMS, and HCl CEMS, the EPA expects that some stakeholders will want to have an opportunity to review and provide comment on these proposed changes. Therefore, the EPA concluded that in this instance notice and comment rulemaking involving both a proposed rule and a final rule is a better approach than a direct final rulemaking.
Categories and entities potentially affected by this proposed action include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this proposed action. To determine whether your facility, company, business, organization, etc., would be regulated by this proposed action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.9981. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA Regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13.
This proposed rule would extend the interim PDF reporting process described in § 63.10031(f) from April 16, 2017, to December 31, 2017. In addition, this proposed rule would amend the reporting requirements in § 63.10031 of the MATS regulation, and, for consistency with those changes, would amend related texts in §§ 63.10011, 63.10021, and 63.10032, and in Tables 3, 8, and 9 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU. The recordkeeping and reporting sections of appendix B would be amended
While the changes in this proposed rule will take time to implement, no significant impact on stakeholders is expected. The set of data elements for performance stack tests and continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluations would remain unchanged; only the reporting format and mechanism would change. Rather than requiring submission of these data via CEDRI, EGU owners or operators would use the ECMPS Client Tool to report in XML format, generated either by using the ERT or by other appropriate means.
In addition to reporting the MATS data through the ECMPS Client Tool, EGU owners or operators would be required to use the ECMPS to report hourly data and quality assurance test results for PM CEMS and hourly response data for PM CPMS in XML format (if those compliance options were selected) and to provide quarterly, rather than semiannual, compliance reporting.
This proposed rule would reduce the excess emissions reporting requirements for all instrumental monitoring except PM CPMS. Instead of reporting only excess emissions, EGU owners or operators would be required to report all of the 30- (or 90-) boiler operating day rolling average emission rates on a quarterly basis for EGUs that use CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring systems to demonstrate compliance with MATS. This represents a shift away from exception-only reporting to continuous compliance reporting.
As previously noted, new HCl CEMS reporting and recordkeeping requirements would be added to appendix B for the certification and QA tests required by PS 18 and QA Procedure 6. These proposed requirements are not expected to increase the burden because multiple compliance options are available for demonstrating compliance with HCl emission limits (
These amendments are being proposed to revise and streamline the electronic reporting requirements of MATS; to increase transparency of MATS emissions data; to reduce the reporting burden via the use of a single reporting system; to amend the reporting requirements for PM CEMS, PM CPMS, Hg CEMS, and Hg sorbent trap monitoring systems; to specify the recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the use of PS 18 and Procedure 6 for HCl CEMS; and to make minor clarifications and corrections to the HCl and Hg monitoring provisions.
The proposed amendments are discussed in detail in the paragraphs below.
The reporting section of MATS,
(a) ECMPS would be designated as the exclusive data system for MATS reporting.
(b) The interim PDF reporting process described in § 63.10031(f) would end on
(c) Although the interim PDF reporting process described in § 63.10031(f) would be discontinued as of December 31, 2017, in order to properly close out that process, PDF submittals would still be accepted for reports required under paragraph (f) introductory text, (f)(1), (f)(2), or (f)(4) if the deadlines for submitting those reports extend beyond that date. As an example, the last semiannual report to use the interim PDF reporting process would be the report covering the period July 1 to December 31, 2017; such a report would be due by January 31, 2018.
(d) Revised paragraph (f)(2) would require quarterly reporting of all 30- or 90-boiler operating day rolling average emission rates for units monitoring Hg, HCl, HF, and/or SO
(e) Until the interim reporting period ends on December 31, 2017, the 30-boiler operating day rolling averages for PM CEMS, PM CPMS, and approved HAP metals CEMS would continue to be reported quarterly in PDF format, in accordance with § 63.10031(f)(2). Then, starting with the first quarter of 2018, the 30- or 90-boiler operating day rolling averages for all parameters (including Hg, HF, HCl, and SO
(f) Paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (5) in revised § 63.10031 of this proposed rule would clarify the electronic reporting requirements for the Hg, HCl, HF, SO
(i) Paragraph (a)(1) would require the electronic reporting requirements of appendix A to be met if Hg CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring systems are used.
(ii) Paragraph (a)(2) would require the electronic reporting requirements of appendix B to be met, with one important qualification, if HCl or HF monitoring systems are used. Until January 1, 2018, if PS 18 in part 60, appendix B, is used to certify an HCl monitor and Procedure 6 in part 60, appendix F, is used for on-going QA of the monitor, EGU owners or operators would report temporarily only data that the existing programming of ECMPS is able to accommodate,
(iii) Paragraph (a)(5) would clarify the electronic reporting requirements for the SO
(iv) Paragraph (f)(3) would be removed and reserved for consistency with the changes described in items (i) through (iii), immediately above.
(g) Paragraphs (b)(2) and (4) would be revised to remove references to postmark dates for submittal of semiannual compliance reports; these reports currently are, and would continue to be, submitted electronically through ECMPS in PDF format.
(h) The provision in paragraph (b)(5) which would allow affected EGU owners or operators to follow alternate submission schedules for semiannual compliance reports would be removed. The uniform submission schedule described in § 63.10031(b)(1)-(4) would be required for all affected EGUs, so that compliance with this reporting requirement can easily be tracked.
(i) Revised paragraph (b)(5) would further require EGU owners or operators to discontinue submission of semiannual compliance reports when the interim PDF reporting period ends; the final semi-annual report would cover the period from July 1 through December 31, 2017.
(j) EGU owners or operators would submit quarterly compliance reports in lieu of the semiannual reports, starting with reports covering the first calendar quarter of 2018 (see § 63.10031(g)). The quarterly compliance reports plus attachments would consolidate other reports that were originally required to be submitted separately on different time tracks,
The operator's MATS compliance strategy would determine which appendix E data elements would be included in each quarterly compliance report. If continuous emission monitoring is used to demonstrate compliance on a 30-boiler operating day rolling average basis, the quarterly compliance report would include all of the 30-day averages calculated during the quarter. If emissions averaging is used, EGU owners or operators would report all of the 30- or 90-group boiler operating day weighted average emission rates (WAERs) calculated during the quarter. If periodic stack testing for compliance is performed (including 30-boiler operating day Hg Low Emitting Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit (LEE) tests), the EGU owner or operator would report a summary of each test completed during the calendar quarter and indicate whether the test has a special purpose (
Note that for all cases in which the EPA reference methods supported by the ERT are used to perform particular stack tests, the EGU owner or operator would be required to provide the data elements specific to the test method(s) used, in XML format, as an attachment to the compliance report. The data elements common to all tests and specific data elements for the various reference methods are listed in sections 17 through 21 of proposed appendix E. This information is already required by MATS, just in another format, and is essential for ensuring that performance tests are conducted properly; confirming the reported values; and developing emission factors, as well as other Agency purposes.
The quarterly compliance reports would retain and incorporate the following features of the semiannual compliance reports: (1) The date of the last boiler tune-up; (2) the date of the last burner inspection; (3) monthly fuel usage data; (4) malfunction information;
The quarterly compliance reports move away from traditional excess emissions reporting for those EGU owners or operators who choose to use Hg, SO
Finally, if an EGU relies on paragraph (2) of the definition of startup given in § 63.10042, the information in § 63.10020(e), which is referenced in § 63.10031(c)(5), would be reported quarterly in PDF format, as an attachment to the compliance report. Note that the EPA understands that reporting this startup data in PDF format is not as transparent and user-friendly as it could be; therefore, we solicit comment on whether this information should be made more transparent and user-friendly. If so, we request comment on possible techniques to achieve those ends,
We believe that consolidating information in quarterly compliance reports as described above, rather than requiring separate submittals of stack test results, 30- (or 90-) boiler operating day rolling average compliance reports, and semiannual reports that come in separately at different times during the year, would greatly simplify reporting and make it easier for inspectors and auditors to assess compliance with the standards. Also, quarterly, as opposed to semiannual, reporting would be advantageous because it would shorten significantly the interval between the time that a deviation or excess emission occurs and the time that the regulatory authority is made aware of the deviation or excess emission. Draft reporting instructions for the quarterly compliance reports are provided in the rule docket and on the Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) Web site, for consideration.
(k) The requirements in § 63.10031(f)(1) and (6) to submit PDF reports of Hg, HCl, HF, and SO
(l) Note that one additional PDF submittal would be required prior to January 1, 2018, and several other PDF submittals would still be required on and after January 1, 2018. Specifically, the following information would have to be provided in PDF format:
(i) A detailed report of the PS 11 correlation test, if the EGU owner or operator elected to use a certified PM CEMS to monitor PM emissions continuously, and recording valid data from the CEMS had begun prior to January 1, 2018. This report is due no later than December 31, 2017;
(ii) Any Notifications of Compliance Status issued on or after January 1, 2018;
(iii) The excess emissions summary report described in § 63.10(e)(3)(v) and (vi), if the EGU owner or operator elected to demonstrate compliance using a PM CPMS. As previously noted, this report would be submitted as an attachment to the quarterly compliance report.
(iv) For EGUs relying on paragraph (2) of the definition of startup given in § 63.10042, the parametric data and other information in § 63.10020(e), for startup and shutdown incidents. This information is currently provided in PDF format as part of the semiannual compliance report. As previously noted, starting with a report covering the first quarter of 2018, the data would be submitted as an attachment to the quarterly compliance report.
(v) For each test described in sections 14.1 through 14.3 of proposed appendix E, section 22 of appendix E would require the EGU owner or operator to provide additional information that is ordinarily included in test reports, but is incompatible with electronic reporting, such as diagrams showing the location of the test site and the sampling points, laboratory calibrations of source sampling equipment, calibration gas cylinder certificates, stack testers' credentials, etc. For performance stack tests, this information would be provided as an attachment to the quarterly compliance report. For RATAs, RRAs, RCAs, and PM CEMS correlations, the information would be provided along with the electronic (XML) test summary required under appendix A, B, C, or part 75 for SO
(m) To accommodate the required PDF reports, the applicable data elements in § 63.10031(f)(6)(i) through (xii) would be entered into the ECMPS Client Tool at the time of submission of each PDF file.
(n) Regarding performance stack test submittals, this proposed rule, as explained in item (j) above, would require a summary of the test results to be included in the quarterly compliance report, with detailed information about the reference method(s) used as an attachment to the quarterly report, in XML format. Similarly, the QA test submittals described in item (k) above would require an electronic summary of the test results to be generated, accompanied by a separate XML file that includes detailed information about the reference method(s) used. As proposed, the ECMPS Client Tool would be used to submit all of this information to the EPA, although ECMPS would not evaluate the detailed reference method information. Instead, those data would be transmitted directly to the Central Data Exchange where they could be further processed and evaluated. ECMPS would, however, perform
(o) Note that the existing ERT can produce a single XML file that includes all of the detailed reference method information necessary for the stack test and QA test reports described above. Therefore, there are two ways that the XML file could be generated that meet the reference method data submission requirements in sections 17-21 of appendix E; either use the ERT itself or another program that provides the data in an appropriate XML file format. In view of this, we solicit comment on whether submitting the detailed reference method data to ECMPS will actually reduce the reporting burden on EGU owners or operators, or whether submitting the data directly to CEDRI would be preferable.
The proposed revisions to § 63.10031 necessitate changes to other sections of the rule to ensure that the rule is internally consistent. The affected rule sections are as follows:
(a) Revised § 63.10011(e) would require Notifications of Compliance Status for the initial and subsequent compliance demonstrations to be submitted in accordance with § 63.10030(e) and § 63.10031(f)(4) and proposed § 63.10031(h). This change is necessary to include all initial and subsequent compliance demonstration submissions. Both the interim reporting process described in § 63.10031(f)(4) and the proposed on-going reporting requirement in § 63.10031(h) require these Notifications to be submitted in PDF format, through ECMPS.
(b) Section 63.10011(g)(3), § 63.10021(h)(3) and (i), and three sentences in Table 3 to subpart UUUUU of 40 CFR part 63 (in Items 3 and 4) would be revised to be consistent with proposed § 63.10031(i). For EGU owners or operators relying on paragraph (2) of the definition of startup in § 63.10042, § 63.10031(i) would retain the requirement for the parametric data and other information referenced in § 63.10031(c)(5) to be included in the semiannual compliance reports, in PDF format, for startup and shutdown incidents that occur during the interim reporting period. However, in view of the proposed phase-out of the semiannual compliance reports, for startup and shutdown incidents that occur during each subsequent calendar quarter, starting with the first quarter of 2018, the information referenced in § 63.10031(c)(5) would be provided as a PDF attachment to the quarterly compliance report, due within 60 days after the end of the quarter.
(c) References to the EPA's ERT and the CEDRI interface would be removed from § 63.10021(f) and replaced with a general statement requiring all applicable notifications and reports to be submitted through ECMPS.
(d) The introductory text of § 63.10032(a) would be amended to include references to the recordkeeping required under proposed appendices C (for PM CEMS), D (for PM CPMS), and E (for the quarterly compliance reports, reference method test data elements, and other information). Also, in view of the move away from semiannual compliance reporting to quarterly reporting, the term “semiannual compliance report” in paragraph (a)(1) would be replaced with the more generic term “compliance report.”
(e) Table 8 to subpart UUUUU of 40 CFR part 63 would be revised to be consistent with the amendments to § 63.10031 and the proposed addition of appendices C, D, and E.
(f) Finally, the recordkeeping requirement for excess emissions in the 28th row of Table 9 to subpart UUUUU of 40 CFR part 63, would be clarified.
This proposed rule would make two corrections to the Hg monitoring provisions of appendix A. First, in the MATS Technical Corrections rule package, which was published on April 6, 2016 (see 81 FR 20172, April 6, 2016), there is language in section 4.1.1.5.2 of appendix A describing an alternate way to calculate and interpret RATA results when Hg emissions are less than 50 percent of the standard. This language was inadvertently carried over from the proposed rule and conflicts with the alternate relative accuracy specification in Table A-1 of the final rule. In view of this, we propose to delete that language. Second, at least one monitor vendor expressed confusion over an apparent inconsistency of the Hg RATA acceptance criteria in Table A-2 versus that in Table A-1. The vendor sought clarification of when the main 20-percent relative accuracy (RA) specification must be used and when the alternate specification applies. In Table A-2, it appears that the 20-percent RA specification only applies when the average CMS value (C
For affected sources desiring to continuously monitor HCl emissions, the original version of appendix B required the monitoring system to be certified according to PS 15 in appendix B to 40 CFR part 60. However, PS 15 applies only to FTIR monitoring systems; therefore, the use of other viable HCl monitoring technologies was excluded. In view of this, the EPA regarded the requirement to use PS 15 exclusively as a temporary measure, until a technology-neutral performance specification for HCl monitors could be developed and published. In section 3.1 of appendix B, the Agency stated its intention to publish such a PS in the near future together with appropriate on-going QA requirements and to amend appendix B to accommodate their use. The required PS, (PS 18 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B), and the on-going QA test requirements (Procedure 6 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F) were published on July 7, 2015 (see 80 FR 38628, July 7, 2015).
Now that technology-neutral certification and QA test requirements
This proposed rule would revise the title to section 2.3 of appendix B by deleting the reference to FTIR-only monitoring systems. In addition, this proposed rule would amend the recordkeeping and reporting sections of appendix B (
Because a technology-neutral PS for HCl CEMS was not available prior to April 16, 2015 (which was the compliance date for many of the existing EGUs), EGU owners or operators interested in monitoring HCl either had to use an FTIR system and follow PS 15 or implement another compliance option (
A new appendix,
A second new appendix,
Proposed section 3.1.1.2 requires the ECMPS Client Tool to be used to create and maintain an electronic monitoring plan. The PM CPMS would be defined as a monitoring system with a unique
Operating parameter records would be required for each hour of operation of the affected EGUs, including the date and hour, the EGU or stack operating time, and a flag to identify exempt startup and shutdown hours. Hourly average PM CPMS output values would be reported for each hour in which a valid value of the output parameter is obtained, in units of milliamps, PM concentration, or other units of measure, including the instrument's digital signal output equivalent. A special code would be required to indicate operating hours in which valid data are not obtained. The percent monitor data availability would also be calculated according to § 75.32.
Proposed sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3, respectively, require notifications (to be provided in accordance with § 63.10030) and electronic monitoring plan submittals at specified times. Proposed section 3.2.4 requires electronic quarterly reports to be submitted within 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter. Reporting of hourly responses from the PM CPMS would begin either with the first operating hour in the first calendar quarter of 2018 or the first operating hour after completion of the initial stack test that establishes the operating limit, whichever is later. Each quarterly report would include a compliance certification with a statement by a responsible official that to the best of his or her knowledge, the report is true, accurate, and complete. In addition to the electronic quarterly reports, proposed section 3.2.5 requires the results of each performance stack test for PM that is used to establish an operating limit to be reported electronically in the relevant quarterly compliance report, in accordance with § 63.10031(g). For PM tests completed on and after January 1, 2018, the data elements common to all tests in section 17 of proposed appendix E and the applicable reference method data elements (in sections 18-20) would be provided for each test run, in an XML report. This report would be submitted along with the quarterly compliance report. The additional information required in section 22 of proposed appendix E would also be reported for each test in PDF format as an attachment to the compliance report.
A third new appendix,
The MATS compliance strategy (
For each performance stack test that is completed on or after January 1, 2018 (including 30- or 90-boiler operating day Hg LEE tests), the data elements common to all tests in section 17 of proposed appendix E and the applicable reference method data elements (in sections 18-21) would be provided for each test run in an XML format. This report would be submitted along with the compliance report for the calendar quarter in which the test was completed.
For RATAs, PM CEMS correlations, RRAs, and RCAs that are completed on or after January 1, 2018, the data elements common to all tests in section 17 of proposed appendix E and the applicable reference method data elements (in sections 17-21) would be provided for each test run in an XML report. This report would be submitted along with the electronic test results reported under appendix A (for Hg system RATAs), appendix B (for HCl and HF system RATAs), appendix C (for correlation tests, RRAs, and RCAs of a PM CEMS), and/or 40 CFR part 75 (for SO
The information in section 22 of proposed appendix E would also be provided for each performance stack test, RATA, RRA, RCA, and PM CEMS correlation, in PDF format.
As mentioned below, while this proposed rulemaking would increase the frequency of compliance reports from semiannual to quarterly, the implementation of a single reporting system and consolidation of reporting would reduce the overall burden by at least 43,194 hours (per year) relative to the original rule. The estimated burden reduction would result in savings to regulated entities of $4,229,162 in annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2137.06. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this proposed rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
This action would not impose any additional information collection burden. Rather, it would reduce burden by requiring all of the essential data to be submitted to a single data system, rather than two systems, as was originally required. As previously discussed in this preamble, this proposed rule represents the second phase of a two-phased approach to achieve that objective. This action would streamline MATS reporting by consolidating a number of separate reports that are currently submitted on different time tracks into a single, quarterly compliance submittal. It would also increase data transparency and provide the public and regulatory authorities with access to more of the MATS data in XML format. No new continuous monitoring requirements would be imposed by this proposed action. Coal-fired EGUs that do not qualify for LEE status would still be required to continuous monitor Hg emissions. The use of continuous monitoring would remain optional for all other parameters. The following is an example of how this proposed rule would streamline MATS reporting and reduce burden. Under the original rule, an owner or operator of a coal-fired EGU that elected: (1) To monitor PM and Hg continuously via CEMS; and (2) to perform quarterly HCl stack tests would have been required, for a typical calendar year, to submit four separate quarterly reports that include the 30-boiler operating day rolling averages for
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 OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this proposed rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impact of this final action on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is an electric utility producing 4 billion kilowatt-hours or less as defined by NAICS codes 221122 (fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units) and 921150 (fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units in Indian country); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. This proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities, and no small entities are expected to incur annualized costs as a result of the amendments. We have determined that the amendments will not result in any “significant” adverse economic impact for small entities. These proposed amendments would not create any new requirements or burdens, and no costs to small entities would be associated with these proposed amendments.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states,
This proposed action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. The proposed amendments would impose no requirements on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this proposed action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(g) * * *
(3) You must report the emissions data recorded during startup and shutdown. If you are relying on paragraph (2) of the definition of startup in § 63.10042, then for startup and shutdown incidents that occur on or prior to December 31, 2017, you must also report the supplementary information referenced in § 63.10031(c)(5) in the semiannual compliance report. For startup and shutdown incidents that occur on or after January 1, 2018, you must provide the information referenced in § 63.10031(c)(5) in PDF format as an attachment to the quarterly compliance reports, in accordance with § 63.10031(i).
(e) * * *
(9) Until January 1, 2018, report the dates of the initial and subsequent tune-ups electronically, in PDF format, in your semiannual compliance reports, as specified in § 63.10031(f)(4) and (6), and, if requested by the Administrator, in hard copy, as specified in § 63.10031(f)(5). After December 31, 2017, report the date of all tune-ups electronically in your quarterly compliance reports, in accordance with § 63.10031(g) and section 10 of appendix E to this subpart. The tune-up report date is the date when tune-up requirements in paragraphs (e)(6) and (7) of this section are completed.
(f) You must submit the applicable reports and notifications required under § 63.10031(a) through (l) to the Administrator electronically, using EPA's Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) Client Tool.
(h) * * *
(3) You must report the emissions data recorded during startup and shutdown. For startup and shutdown incidents that occur on or prior to December 31, 2017, you must also report the supplementary information in § 63.10031(c)(5) in the semiannual compliance report. For startup and shutdown incidents that occur on and after January 1, 2018, the applicable information in § 63.10031(c)(5) shall be provided quarterly, in PDF format, in accordance with § 63.10031(i).
(i) You must provide reports concerning activities and periods of startup and shutdown that occur on or prior to December 31, 2017, in accordance with § 63.10031(c)(5), in the semiannual compliance report. For startup and shutdown incidents that occur on and after January 1, 2018, the applicable information in § 63.10031(c)(5) shall be provided quarterly, in PDF format, in accordance with § 63.10031(i).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) You must submit each report in this section that applies to you.
(1) If you are required to (or elect to) monitor Hg emissions continuously, you must meet the electronic reporting requirements of appendix A to this subpart.
(2) If you elect to monitor HCl and/or HF emissions continuously, you must meet the electronic reporting requirements of appendix B to this subpart. Notwithstanding this requirement, if you opt to certify your
(3) If you elect to monitor filterable PM emissions continuously, you must meet the electronic reporting requirements of appendix C to this subpart. Electronic reporting of hourly PM emissions data shall begin with the later of: The first operating hour on or after January 1, 2018; or the first operating hour after completion of the initial PM CEMS correlation test.
(4) If you elect to demonstrate continuous compliance using a PM CPMS, you must meet the electronic reporting requirements of appendix D to this subpart. Electronic reporting of the hourly PM CPMS output shall begin with the later of: The first operating hour on or after January 1, 2018; or the first operating hour after completion of the initial performance stack test that establishes the operating limit for the PM CPMS.
(5) If you elect to monitor SO
(i) Monitoring plan information for the SO
(ii) Certification, recertification, quality-assurance, and diagnostic test results for the SO
(iii) Quarterly electronic emissions reports. You must submit an electronic quarterly report within 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter, starting with a report for the calendar quarter in which the initial 30 boiler operating day performance test begins. Each report must include the following information:
(A) The applicable operating data specified in § 75.57(b) of this chapter;
(B) An hourly data stream for the unadjusted SO
(C) An hourly SO
(D) The results of all required daily quality-assurance tests of the SO
(E) A compliance certification, which includes a statement, based on reasonable inquiry of those persons with primary responsibility for ensuring that all SO
(b) You must submit semiannual compliance reports according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.9984 or, if applicable, the extended compliance date approved under § 63.6(i)(4), and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the first date that occurs at least 180 days after the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.9984.
(2) The first compliance report must be submitted electronically no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for your source in § 63.9984 or, if applicable, the extended compliance date approved under § 63.6(i)(4).
(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be submitted electronically no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(5) The final semiannual compliance report shall cover the reporting period from July 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. Quarterly compliance reports shall be submitted thereafter, in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section, starting with a report covering the first calendar quarter of 2018.
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) If you choose to use CEMS for compliance purposes, include hourly average CEMS values and hourly average flow rates. Use units of milligrams per cubic meter for PM CEMS, micrograms per cubic meter for Hg CEMS, and ppmv for HCl, HF, or SO
(d)(1) Prior to January 1, 2018, in the semiannual compliance reports described in paragraph (c) of this section, you must include in the report the excess emissions and monitor downtime information required in § 63.10(e)(3)(v) and (vi) for EGUs whose owners or operators rely on a CMS to comply with an emissions or operating limit.
(2) Beginning on January 1, 2018, if you own or operate an EGU that relies on a CMS to demonstrate compliance, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, you must include in your quarterly compliance report the following information for any excess emission(s) that occurred during the calendar quarter; if there were no excess emissions, you must include a statement to that effect in the compliance report:
(i) The date (or, if applicable, the range of dates) on which each excess emission (as defined in § 63.10042) occurred;
(ii) The cause of the excess emission (if known);
(iii) A description of any corrective actions taken; and
(iv) If there were any malfunctions or emergency bypass incidents during the reporting period, include the number, duration, and a brief description of each type of malfunction or bypass event that occurred and that caused (or may have caused) any applicable emissions limitation to be exceeded.
(3) If you rely on a PM CPMS to demonstrate compliance with an
(e) Each affected source that has obtained a Title V operating permit pursuant to part 70 or part 71 of this chapter must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected source submits a semiannual compliance report pursuant paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, or two quarterly compliance reports covering the appropriate calendar half pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section, along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report(s) includes all required information concerning deviations from any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice requirement in this subpart, submission of the compliance report(s) satisfies any obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. Submission of the compliance report(s) does not otherwise affect any obligation the affected source may have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permit authority.
(1) Prior to January 1, 2018, compliance with the emission limits and/or operating limits in this subpart shall be assessed based on information provided in the applicable reports and notifications described in paragraphs (a), (f), and (j) of this section.
(2) On and after January 1, 2018, the interim PDF reporting period described in paragraph (f)(6) of this section shall be discontinued and compliance with the emissions and operating limits of this subpart shall be assessed based on information provided in:
(i) The information described in paragraphs (g), (i), and (k) of this section;
(ii) The applicable electronic reports required under paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section; and
(iii) Notifications of Compliance Status, in accordance with paragraph (h) of this section.
(f) For each performance stack test completed prior to January 1, 2018 (including 30-boiler operating day Hg LEE demonstration tests), you must submit a PDF test report in accordance with paragraph (f)(6) of this section, no later than 60 days after the date on which the testing is completed.
(1) For each relative accuracy test audit (RATA) of an Hg, HCl, HF, or SO
(2) If, for a particular EGU or a group of EGUs serving a common stack, you have elected to demonstrate compliance using a PM CEMS, an approved HAP metals CEMS, or a PM CPMS, you must submit quarterly PDF reports in accordance with paragraph (f)(6) of this section, which include all of the 30-boiler operating day rolling average emission rates derived from the CEMS data or the 30-boiler operating day rolling average responses derived from the PM CPMS data (as applicable). Each quarterly report is due within 60 days after the reporting periods ending on March 31st, June 30th, September 30th, and December 31st. Submission of these quarterly reports in PDF format shall end with the report that covers the fourth calendar quarter of 2017. Beginning with the first calendar quarter of 2018, the compliance averages shall no longer be reported separately, but shall be incorporated into the quarterly compliance reports described in paragraph (g) of this section. In addition to the compliance averages for PM CEMS, PM CPMS, and/or HAP metals CEMS, the quarterly compliance reports described in paragraph (g) of this section must also include the rolling average emission rates for Hg, HCl, HF, and/or SO
(3) [Reserved]
(4) You must submit semiannual compliance reports as required under paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, ending with a report covering the semiannual period from July 1 through December 31, 2017, and Notifications of Compliance Status as required under § 63.10030(e), in PDF format. Quarterly compliance reports shall be submitted in XML format thereafter, in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section, starting with a report covering the first calendar quarter of 2018.
(6) All reports and notifications described in paragraphs (f) introductory text, (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(4) of this section shall be submitted to the EPA in the specified format and at the specified frequency using the ECMPS Client Tool. Each PDF version of a performance stack test report, CEMS RATA report, RRA report, and RCA report must include sufficient information to assess compliance and to demonstrate that the reference method testing was done properly. The following data elements must be entered into the ECMPS Client Tool at the time of submission of each PDF file:
(vii) An indication of the type of PDF report or notification being submitted;
(xi) The date the performance test was conducted (if applicable) and the test number (if applicable);
(g) Starting with a report for the first calendar quarter of 2018, you must use the ECMPS Client Tool to submit quarterly electronic compliance reports. The compliance reports are due no later than 60 days after the end of each calendar quarter. Each compliance report shall include the applicable data elements in sections 2 through 13 of appendix E to this subpart. For each performance stack test in the compliance report, provided that the testing was conducted using a method (or methods) supported by the ERT and identified on the ERT Web site, you must submit an XML file that includes the applicable data elements in sections 17 through 21 of appendix B to this subpart and a PDF attachment that includes the information in section 22 of appendix E to this subpart (see
(h) On and after January 1, 2018, all required Notifications of Compliance Status shall be submitted in accordance with § 63.9(h)(2)(ii), in PDF format, using the ECMPS Client Tool. The applicable data elements in paragraphs (f)(6)(i) through (xii) of this section must be entered into ECMPS with each Notification.
(i) For startup and shutdown incidents that occur on or prior to December 31, 2017, you must include the information in § 63.10031(c)(5) in PDF format, in the semiannual compliance report. For startup and shutdown event(s) that occur on or after January 1, 2018, you must use the ECMPS Client Tool to submit this information in PDF format, as an attachment to each quarterly compliance report starting with the report for the first calendar quarter of 2018. The applicable data elements in
(j) If you elect to use a certified PM CEMS to monitor PM emissions continuously to demonstrate compliance with this subpart and have begun recording valid data from the PM CEMS prior to January 1, 2018, you must use the ECMPS Client Tool to submit a detailed report of your PS 11 correlation test in PDF format no later than December 31, 2017. The applicable data elements in paragraphs (f)(6)(i) through (xii) of this section must be entered into ECMPS with the PDF report.
(k) If you elect to demonstrate compliance using a PM CPMS, you must use the ECMPS Client Tool to submit the excess emissions summary report described in § 63.10(e)(3)(v) and (vi) in PDF format, as an attachment to the quarterly compliance report. The first report shall cover the period from January 1, 2018 through March 31, 2018. The applicable data elements in paragraphs (f)(6)(i) through (xii) of this section must be entered into ECMPS with each report submittal.
(l) You must meet the applicable reporting requirements of appendix E to this subpart.
(a) You must keep records according to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. If you are required to (or elect to) continuously monitor Hg and/or HCl and/or HF and/or PM emissions, or if you elect to use a PM CPMS, you must keep the records required under appendix A and/or appendix B and/or appendix C and/or appendix D to this subpart. You must also keep records of all data elements and other information in appendix E to this subpart that apply to your compliance strategy.
(1) In accordance with § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv), a copy of each initial notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted (including all supporting documentation) and a copy of each compliance report that you submitted.
The revisions read as follows:
In accordance with § 63.10031, you must meet the following reporting requirements, as they apply to your compliance strategy:
The revisions read as follows:
4.1.1.5.2
The revisions and additions read as follows:
2.3
10.1.8.1.1 For each required 7-day and daily calibration drift test or daily calibration error test (including daily calibration transfer standard tests) of the HCl or HF CEMS, record the test date(s) and time(s), reference gas value(s), monitor response(s), and calculated calibration drift or calibration error value(s). If you use the dynamic spiking option for the mid-level calibration drift check under PS-18, you must also record the measured concentration of the native HCl in the flue gas before and after the spike and the spiked gas dilution factor. When using an IP-CEMS under PS 18, you must also record the measured concentrations of the native HCl before and after introduction of each reference gas, the path lengths of the calibration cell and the stack optical path, the stack and calibration cell temperatures, the instrument line strength factor, and the calculated equivalent concentration of reference gas.
10.1.8.1.2 For the required gas audits of an FTIR HCl or HF CEMS that is following PS 15, record the date and time of each spiked and unspiked sample, the audit gas reference values and uncertainties. Keep records of all calculations and data analyses required under sections 9.1 and 12.1 of Performance Specification 15, and the results of those calculations and analyses.
10.1.8.1.3 For each required RATA of an HCl or HF CEMS, record the beginning and ending date and time of each test run, the reference method(s) used, and the reference method and HCl or HF CEMS run values. Keep records of stratification tests performed (if any), all the raw field data, relevant process operating data, and the all calculations used to determine the relative accuracy.
10.1.8.1.4 For each required beam intensity test of an HCl IP-CEMS under PS 18, record the test date and time, the known attenuation value (%) used for the test, the concentration of the high-level reference gas used, the full-beam and attenuated beam intensity levels, the measured HCl concentrations at full-beam intensity and attenuated intensity and the percent difference between them, and the results of the test. For each required daily beam intensity check of an IP-CEMS under Procedure 6, record the beam intensity measured including the units of measure and the results of the check.
10.1.8.1.5 For each required measurement error test of an HCl monitor, record the date and time of each gas injection, the reference gas concentration (low, mid, or high) and the monitor response for each of the three injections at each of the three levels. Also record the average monitor response and the measurement error (ME) at each gas level and the related calculations. For measurement error tests conducted on IP-CEMS, also record the measured concentrations of the native HCl before and after introduction of each reference gas, the path lengths of the calibration cell and the stack optical path, the stack and calibration cell temperatures, the stack and calibration cell pressures, the instrument line strength factor, and the calculated equivalent concentration of reference gas.
10.1.8.1.6 For each required level of detection (LOD) test of an HCl monitor performed in a controlled environment, record the test date, the concentrations of the reference gas and interference gases, the results of the seven (or more) consecutive measurements of HCl, the standard deviation, and the LOD value. For each required LOD test performed in the field, record the test date, the three measurements of the native source HCl concentration, the results of the three independent standard addition (SA) measurements known as standard addition response (SAR), the effective spike addition gas concentration (for IP-CEMS, the equivalent concentration of the reference gas), the resulting standard addition detection level (SADL) value and all related calculations. For extractive CEMS performing the SA using dynamic spiking, you must record the spiked gas dilution factor.
10.1.8.1.7 For each required measurement error/level of detection response time test of an HCl monitor, record the test date, the native HCl concentration of the flue gas, the reference gas value, the stable reference gas readings, the upscale/downscale start and end times, and the results of the upscale and downscale stages of the test.
10.1.8.1.8 For each required temperature or pressure measurement verification or audit of an IP-CEMS, keep records of the test date, the temperatures or pressures (as applicable) measured by the calibrated temperature or pressure reference device and the IP-CEMS, and the results of the test.
10.1.8.1.9 For each required interference test of an HCl monitor, record the date of the test, the HCl concentration of the reference gas used, the concentrations of the interference test gases, the baseline HCl and HCl responses for each interferent combination spiked, and the total percent interference as a function of span or HCl concentration. Also keep records to document the quantity and quality of gases, gas volume/rate, temperature, and pressure used to conduct the test.
10.1.8.1.10 For each quarterly relative accuracy audit (RAA) of an HCl monitor, record the beginning and ending date and time of each test run, the reference method used, the HCl concentrations measured by the reference method and CEMS for each test run, the average concentrations measured by the reference method and the CEMS, and the calculated relative accuracy (RA). Keep records of the raw field data, relevant process operating data, and the calculations used to determine the RA.
10.1.8.1.11 For each quarterly cylinder gas audit (CGA) of an HCl monitor, record the date and time of each injection, and the reference gas concentration (zero, mid, or high) and the monitor response for each injection. Also record the average monitor response and the calculated measurement error (ME) at each gas level. For IP-CEMS, you must also record the measured concentrations of the native HCl before and after introduction of each reference gas, the path lengths of the calibration cell and the stack optical path, the stack and calibration cell temperatures, the stack and calibration cell pressures, the instrument line strength factor, and the calculated equivalent concentration of reference gas.
10.1.8.1.12 For each quarterly dynamic spiking audit (DSA) of an HCl monitor, record the date and time of the zero gas injection and each spike injection, the results of the zero gas injection, the gas concentrations (mid and high) and the dilution factors and the monitor response for each of the six upscale injections as well as the corresponding native HCl concentrations measured before and after each injection. Also record the average dynamic spiking error for each of the upscale gases, the calculated average DSA Accuracy at each upscale gas concentration, and all calculations leading to the DSA Accuracy.
11.4.1 For each daily calibration drift (or calibration error) assessment (including daily calibration transfer standard tests), and for each 7-day calibration drift test of an HCl or HF monitor, report:
11.4.1.1 Facility ID information;
11.4.1.2 The monitoring component ID;
11.4.1.3 The instrument span and span scale;
11.4.1.4 For each gas injection, the date and time, the calibration gas level (zero, mid or other), the reference gas value (ppm), and the monitor response (ppm);
11.4.1.5 A flag to indicate whether dynamic spiking was used for the upscale value (extractive HCl monitors, only);
11.4.1.6 Calibration drift or calibration error (percent of span or reference gas, as applicable);
11.4.1.7 When using the dynamic spiking option, the measured concentration of native HCl before and after each mid-level spike and the spiked gas dilution factor;
11.4.1.8 When using an IP-CEMS, also report the measured concentration of native HCl before and after each upscale measurement, the path lengths of the calibration cell and the stack optical path, the stack and calibration cell temperatures, the stack and calibration cell pressures, the instrument line strength factor, and the equivalent concentration of the reference gas; and
11.4.1.9 Reason for test (for the 7-day CD test, only).
11.4.2 For each quarterly gas audit of an HCl or HF CEMS that is following PS 15, report:
11.4.3.11 Standard deviation, as specified in Equation 2-4 of Performance Specification 2 in appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. For HCl CEMS following PS 18, calculate the standard deviation according to section 12.6 of PS 18;
11.4.3.12 Confidence coefficient, as specified in Equation 2-5 of Performance Specification 2 in appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. For HCl CEMS following PS 18, calculate the confidence coefficient according to section 12.6 of PS 18;
11.4.3.13 T-value; and
11.4.3.14
11.4.4 For each 3-level measurement error test of an HCl monitor, report:
11.4.4.1 Facility ID information;
11.4.4.2 Monitoring component ID;
11.4.4.3 Instrument span and span scale;
11.4.4.4 For each gas injection, the date and time, the calibration gas level (low, mid, or high), the reference gas value in ppm and the monitor response. When using an IP-CEMS, also report the measured concentration of native HCl before and after each injection, the path lengths of the calibration cell and the stack optical path, the stack and calibration cell temperatures, the stack and calibration cell pressures, the instrument line strength factor, and the equivalent concentration of the reference gas;
11.4.4.5 For extractive CEMS, the mean reference value and mean of measured values at each reference gas level (ppm). For IP-CEMS, the mean of the measured concentration minus the average measured native concentration minus the equivalent reference gas concentration (ppm), at each reference gas level—see Equation 6A in PS 18;
11.4.4.6 Measurement error (ME) at each reference gas level; and
11.4.4.7 Reason for test.
11.4.5 Beam intensity tests of an IP CEMS:
11.4.5.1 For the initial beam intensity test described in Performance Specification 18 in appendix B to part 60 of this chapter, report:
11.4.5.1.1 Facility ID information;
11.4.5.1.2 Date and time of the test;
11.4.5.1.3 Monitoring system ID;
11.4.5.1.4 Reason for test;
11.4.5.1.5 Attenuation value (%);
11.4.5.1.6 High level gas concentration (ppm);
11.4.5.1.7 Full and attenuated beam intensity levels, including units of measure;
11.4.5.1.8 Measured HCl concentrations at full and attenuated beam intensity (ppm); and
11.4.5.1.9 Percentage difference between the HCl concentrations.
11.4.5.2 For the daily beam intensity check described in Procedure 6 of appendix F to Part 60 of this chapter, report:
11.4.5.2.1 Facility ID information;
11.4.5.2.2 Date and time of the test;
11.4.5.2.3 Monitoring system ID;
11.4.5.2.4 The attenuated beam intensity level (limit) established in the initial test;
11.4.5.2.5 The beam intensity measured during the daily check; and
11.4.5.2.6 Results of the test (pass or fail).
11.4.6 For each temperature or pressure verification or audit of an HCl IP-CEMS, report:
11.4.6.1 Facility ID information;
11.4.6.2 Date and time of the test;
11.4.6.3 Monitoring system ID;
11.4.6.4 Type of verification (T or P);
11.4.6.5 Stack sensor measured value;
11.4.6.6 Reference device measured value;
11.4.6.7 Results of the test (pass or fail); and
11.4.6.8 Reason for test.
11.4.7 For each interference test of an HCl monitoring system, report:
11.4.7.1 Facility ID information;
11.4.7.2 Date of test;
11.4.7.3 Monitoring system ID;
11.4.7.4 HCl reference gas concentration;
11.4.7.5 Interference gas types;
11.4.7.6 Concentration of interference gas;
11.4.7.7 Interference free sample response;
11.4.7.8 Response with interference;
11.4.7.9 Total interference;
11.4.7.10 Results of the test (pass or fail);
11.4.7.11 Reason for test; and
11.4.7.12 A flag to indicate whether the test was performed: On this particular monitoring system; on one of multiple systems of the same type; or by the manufacturer on a system with components of the same make and model(s) as this system.
11.4.8 For each level of detection (LOD) test of an HCl monitor, report:
11.4.8.1 Facility ID information;
11.4.8.2 Date of test;
11.4.8.3 Reason for test;
11.4.8.4 Monitoring system ID;
11.4.8.5 A code to indicate whether the test was done in a controlled environment or in the field;
11.4.8.6 HCl reference gas concentration;
11.4.8.7 HCl responses with interference gas (7 repetitions);
11.4.8.8 Standard deviation of HCl responses;
11.4.8.9 Effective spike addition gas concentrations;
11.4.8.10 HCl concentration measured without spike;
11.4.8.11 HCl concentration measured with spike;
11.4.8.12 Dilution factor for spike;
11.4.8.13 The controlled environment LOD value (ppm or ppm-meters);
11.4.8.14 The field determined standard addition detection level (SADL in ppm or ppm-meters); and
11.4.8.15 Result of LDO/SADL test (pass/fail).
11.4.9 For each ME or LOD response time test of an HCl monitor, report:
11.4.9.1 Facility ID information;
11.4.9.2 Date of test;
11.4.9.3 Monitoring component ID;
11.4.9.4 The higher of the upscale or downscale tests, in minutes; and
11.4.9.5 Reason for test.
11.4.10 For each quarterly relative accuracy audit of an HCl monitor, report:
11.4.10.1 Facility ID information;
11.4.10.2 Monitoring system ID;
11.4.10.3 Begin and end time of each test run;
11.4.10.4 The reference method used;
11.4.10.5 The reference method (RM) and CEMS values for each test run, including the units of measure;
11.4.10.6 The mean RM and CEMS values for the three test runs;
11.4.10.7 The calculated relative accuracy (RA), percent; and
11.4.10.8 Reason for test.
11.4.11 For each quarterly cylinder gas audit of an HCl monitor, report:
11.4.11.1 Facility ID information;
11.4.11.2 Monitoring component ID;
11.4.11.3 Instrument span and span scale;
11.4.11.4 For each gas injection, the date and time, the reference gas level (zero, mid, or high), the reference gas value in ppm, and the monitor response. When using an IP-CEMS, also report the measured concentration of native HCl before and after each injection, the path lengths of the calibration cell and the stack optical path, the stack and calibration cell temperatures, the stack and calibration cell pressures, the instrument line strength factor, and the equivalent concentration of the reference gas;
11.4.11.5 For extractive CEMS, the mean reference gas value and mean monitor response at each reference gas level (ppm). For IP-CEMS, the mean of the measured concentration minus the average measured native concentration minus the equivalent reference gas concentration (ppm), at each reference gas level—see Equation 6A in PS 18;
11.4.11.6 Measurement error (ME) at each reference gas level; and
11.4.11.7 Reason for test.
11.4.12 For each quarterly dynamic spiking audit of an HCl monitor, report:
11.4.12.1 Facility ID information;
11.4.12.2 Monitoring component ID;
11.4.12.3 Instrument span and span scale;
11.4.12.4 For the zero gas injection, the date and time, and the monitor response (
11.4.12.5 Zero spike error;
11.4.12.6 For the upscale gas spiking, the date and time of each spike, the reference gas level (mid- or high-), the reference gas value (ppm), the dilution factor, the native HCl concentrations before and after each spike, and the monitor response for each gas spike;
11.4.12.7 Upscale spike error;
11.4.12.8 Dynamic spike accuracy (DSA) at the zero level and at each upscale gas level; and
11.4.12.9 Reason for test.
11.4.13
11.5.1 The owner or operator of any affected unit shall use the ECMPS Client Tool to submit electronic quarterly reports to the Administrator in an XML format specified by the Administrator, for each affected unit (or group of units monitored at a common stack). If the certified HCl or HF CEMS is used for the initial compliance demonstration, HCl or HF emissions reporting shall begin with the first operating hour of the 30 boiler operating day compliance demonstration period. Otherwise, HCl or HF emissions reporting shall begin with the first operating hour after successfully completing all required certification tests of the CEMS.
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
2.1
2.2
The following definitions, equipment specifications, procedures, and performance criteria are applicable
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.2.1 In both milligrams per actual cubic meter (mg/acm) and milligrams per wet standard cubic meter (mg/wscm) If the PM CEMS measures in units of mg/acm; or
3.2.2.2 Milligrams per wet standard cubic meter (mg/wscm), if the PM CEMS measures in mg/wscm; or
3.2.2.3 In both milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) and milligrams per wet standard cubic meter(mg/wscm), if the PM CEMS measures in units of mg/dscm.
3.2.3
3.2.3.1
3.2.3.2
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.2
4.2.1 You must recertify your PM CEMS if it is either: moved to a different stack or duct; moved to a new location within the same stack or duct; modified or repaired in such a way that the existing correlation is altered or impacted; or replaced.
4.2.2 The flow rate, diluent gas, and moisture monitoring systems that are used to convert PM concentration to units of the emission standard are subject to the recertification provisions in § 75.20(b) of this chapter.
4.3
4.3.1 A response correlation audit (RCA) is failed and the new or revised correlation is developed according to section 10.6 in Procedure 2 of appendix F to part 60 of this chapter; or
4.3.2 The events described in paragraph (1) or (2) in section 8.8 of PS 11 occur while the EGU is operating under normal conditions.
5.1
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.2
5.3
5.3.1
5.3.1.1
5.3.1.2
5.3.1.3
5.3.2
5.3.2.1
5.3.2.2
5.3.2.3
5.3.3
5.3.4
5.3.5 You may store your QA/QC plan electronically, provided that you can make the information available expeditiously in hard copy to auditors or inspectors.
6.1
6.1.1 You must reduce the data from PM CEMS to hourly averages, in accordance with § 60.13(h)(2) of this chapter.
6.1.2 You must reduce all CEMS data from stack gas flow rate, CO
6.1.3 You must reduce all other data from devices used to convert readings from the PM CEMS to standard conditions to hourly averages according to § 63.8(g)(2) or § 75.10(d)(1) of this chapter. This includes, but is not limited to, data from devices used to measure temperature and pressure, or, for cogeneration units that calculate gross output based on steam characteristics, devices to measure steam flow rate, steam pressure, and steam temperature.
6.1.4 Do not calculate the PM emission rate for any unit or stack operating hour in which valid data are not obtained for PM concentration or for a parameter used in the emissions calculations (
6.1.5 For the purposes of this appendix, part 75 substitute data values for stack gas flow rate, CO
6.1.6 Operating hours in which PM concentration is missing or invalid are hours of monitoring system downtime. The use of substitute data for PM concentration is not allowed.
6.1.7 You must exclude all data obtained during a boiler startup or shutdown operating hour (as defined in § 63.10042) from the determination of the 30 boiler operating day rolling average PM emission rates.
6.2
6.2.1 For each unit or stack operating hour, prior to converting the PM CEMS concentration to units of the emission
6.2.2
6.2.2.1 You must select an appropriate emission rate equation from among Equations 19-1 through 19-9 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter to convert the reported hourly PM concentration value to units of lb/mmBtu. Note that the Method 19 equations require the pollutant concentration to be expressed in units of lb/scf; therefore, you must first multiply the PM concentration by 6.24 × 10
6.2.2.2 You must use the appropriate carbon-based or dry-basis F-factor listed in Table 19-2 of Method 19 in the emission rate equation that you have selected. However, if the appropriate F-factor is not in Table 19-2, you may use F-factors from section 3.3.5 or section 3.3.6 of appendix F to part 75 of this chapter.
6.2.2.3 If the hourly average O
6.2.2.4 If your selected Method 19 equation requires a correction for the stack gas moisture content, you may either use quality-assured hourly data from a certified part 75 moisture monitoring system, a fuel-specific default moisture value from § 75.11(b) of this chapter, or a site-specific default moisture value approved by the Administrator under § 75.66 of this chapter.
6.2.2.5 You must calculate the 30-boiler operating day rolling average PM emission rates according to § 63.10021(b).
6.2.3
6.2.3.1 For each unit or stack operating hour, you must use the following equation to calculate the gross output-based PM emission rate, in units of lb/MWh.
6.2.3.2 You must calculate the 30-boiler operating day rolling average PM emission rates according to § 63.10021(b).
7.1
7.1.1
7.1.1.1
7.1.1.2
7.1.1.2.1
7.1.1.2.2
7.1.2
7.1.2.1 The date and hour;
7.1.2.2 The unit or stack operating time (rounded up to the nearest fraction of an hour (in equal increments that can range from one hundredth to one quarter of an hour, at your option);
7.1.2.3 The hourly gross output (rounded to nearest MWe);
7.1.2.4 If applicable, the F
7.1.2.5 If applicable, a flag to indicate that the hour is an exempt startup or shutdown hour.
7.1.3
7.1.3.1 The date and hour;
7.1.3.2 Monitoring system and component identification codes for the PM CEMS, as provided in the electronic monitoring plan, if your CEMS provides a quality-assured value of PM concentration for the hour;
7.1.3.3 The hourly PM concentration, if a quality-assured value is obtained for the hour.
7.1.3.3.1 For all PM CEMS, record PM concentration in units of mg/wscm.
7.1.3.3.2 If your PM CEMS measures in units of mg/acm, also record the hourly PM concentration in units of mg/acm, and record the temperature and pressure values used in Equation C-1 or C-2 of this appendix to convert from mg/acm to mg/wscm.
7.1.3.3.3 If your PM CEMS measures in units of mg/dscm, also record the hourly PM concentration in units of mg/dscm, and record the moisture value used to convert from mg/dscm to mg/wscm (see section 7.1.6 of this appendix).
7.1.3.4 If applicable, the stack temperature (°F) and stack pressure (in. Hg) used to convert PM concentration from mg/acm to mg/wscm;
7.1.3.5 A special code, indicating whether or not a quality-assured PM concentration is obtained for the hour; and
7.1.3.6 Monitor data availability for PM concentration, as a percentage of unit or stack operating hours calculated according to § 75.32 of this chapter.
7.1.4 Stack Gas Volumetric Flow Rate Records.
7.1.4.1 When a gross output-based PM emissions limit must be met, in units of lb/MWh, you must obtain hourly measurements of stack gas volumetric flow rate during EGU operation, in order to convert PM concentrations to units of the standard.
7.1.4.2 When hourly measurements of stack gas flow rate are needed, you must keep hourly records of the flow rates and related information, as specified in § 75.57(c)(2) of this chapter.
7.1.5
7.1.5.1 When a heat input-based PM emission limit must be met, in units of lb/mmBtu, you must obtain hourly measurements of CO
7.1.5.2 When hourly measurements of diluent gas concentration are needed, you must keep hourly CO
7.1.6
7.1.6.1 When corrections for stack gas moisture content are needed to demonstrate compliance with the applicable PM emissions limit or to convert dry basis PM concentration measurements to wet basis:
7.1.6.1.1 If you use a continuous moisture monitoring system, you must keep hourly records of the stack gas moisture content and related information, as specified in § 75.57(c)(3) of this chapter.
7.1.6.1.2 If you use a fuel-specific or approved site-specific default moisture value, you must represent it in the electronic monitoring plan required under section 7.1.1.2.1 of this appendix.
7.1.7
7.1.7.1 The date and hour;
7.1.7.2 The hourly PM emissions rate (lb/mmBtu or lb/MWh, as applicable), calculated according to section 6.2.2 or 6.2.3 of this appendix, rounded to three significant figures, and expressed in scientific notation. You must calculate the PM emission rate only when valid values of PM concentration and all other required parameters required to convert PM concentration to the units of the standard are obtained for the hour;
7.1.7.3 An identification code for the formula used to derive the hourly PM emission rate from measurements of the PM concentration and other necessary parameters (
7.1.7.4 If applicable, a special code to indicate that the diluent cap has been used to calculate the PM emission rate; and
7.1.7.5 If applicable, a special code to indicate that the default gross output has been used to calculate the hourly PM emission rate.
7.1.7.6 A code indicating that the PM emission rate was not calculated for the hour, if valid data are not obtained for PM concentration and/or any of the other parameters in the PM emission rate equation. For the purposes of this appendix, substitute data values for stack gas flow rate, CO
7.1.8
7.1.9
7.1.9.1 The test dates and times, reference values, monitor responses, monitor full scale value, and calculated results for the required 7-day drift tests and for the required daily zero and upscale calibration drift tests;
7.1.9.2 The test dates and times and results (pass or fail) of all daily system optics checks and daily sample volume checks of the PM CEMS (as applicable);
7.1.9.3 The test dates and times, reference values, monitor responses, and calculated results for all required quarterly ACAs;
7.1.9.4 The test dates and times, reference values, monitor responses, and calculated results for all required quarterly SVAs of extractive PM CEMS;
7.1.9.5 The test dates and times, reference method readings and corresponding PM CEMS responses (including the units of measure), and the calculated results for all PM CEMS correlation tests, RRAs and RCAs. For the correlation tests, you must indicate which model is used (
7.1.9.6 The cycle time and sample delay time for PM CEMS that operate in batch sampling mode; and
7.1.9.7 Supporting information for all required PM CEMS correlation tests, RRAs, and RCAs, including records of all raw reference method and monitoring system data, the results of sample analyses to substantiate the reported test results, as well as records of sampling equipment calibrations, reference monitor calibrations, and analytical equipment calibrations.
7.1.10 For stack gas flow rate, diluent gas, and moisture monitoring systems, you must keep records of all certification, recertification, diagnostic, and on-going quality-assurance tests of these systems, as specified in § 75.59(a) of this chapter.
7.1.11 For any temperature measurement device (
7.2
7.2.1
7.2.1.1 Notifications, in accordance with section 7.2.2 of this appendix;
7.2.1.2 Monitoring plan reporting, in accordance with section 7.2.3 of this appendix;
7.2.1.3 Certification, recertification, and QA test submittals, in accordance with section 7.2.4 of this appendix; and
7.2.1.4 Electronic quarterly report submittals, in accordance with section 7.2.5 of this appendix.
7.2.2
7.2.3
7.2.3.1 You must submit the electronic and hard copy information in section 7.1.1.2 of this appendix pertaining to the PM monitoring system(s) at least 21 days prior to the date on which the Administrator specifies that electronic reporting of PM emissions data via ECMPS is required to begin, or the date on which the initial certification testing of your PM CEMS begins, whichever is later. Also you must submit the monitoring plan information in § 75.53(g) of this chapter pertaining to the required stack gas flow rate, diluent gas, and moisture monitoring system(s) within that same time frame, if those required records are not already in place.
7.2.3.2 Whenever an update of the monitoring plan is required, as provided in section 7.1.1.1 of this appendix, you must submit the updated information either prior to or concurrent with the relevant quarterly electronic emissions report.
7.2.3.3 You must make all electronic monitoring plan submittals and updates to the Administrator using the ECMPS Client Tool. Hard copy portions of the monitoring plan shall be kept on file according to section 7.1 of this appendix.
7.2.4
7.2.5
7.2.5.1 For each affected EGU (or group of EGUs monitored at a common stack), you must use the ECMPS Client Tool to submit electronic quarterly reports to the Administrator, in an XML format specified by the Administrator, starting with a report for the later of:
7.2.5.1.1 The first calendar quarter of 2018; or
7.2.5.1.2 The calendar quarter in which the initial PM CEMS correlation test is completed.
7.2.5.2 You must submit the electronic reports within 30 days following the end of each calendar quarter, except for EGUs that have been placed in long-term cold storage (as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter).
7.2.5.3 Each of your electronic quarterly reports shall include the following information:
7.2.5.3.1 The date of report generation;
7.2.5.3.2 Facility identification information;
7.2.5.3.3 The information in sections 7.1.2 through 7.1.7 of this appendix, as applicable to the PM emission measurement methodology used and the units of the PM emission standard with which you have elected to comply; and
7.2.5.3.4 The results of all daily QA assessments,
7.2.5.4
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.3.1 In accordance with § 63.10007(a)(3), § 63.10011(b), § 63.10023(a), and Table 6 to this subpart, you must determine an initial site-specific operating limit for your PM CPMS, using data recorded by the monitoring system during a performance stack test that demonstrates compliance with one of the following emissions limits in Table 1 or Table 2 to this subpart: filterable PM; total non-Hg HAP metals; total HAP metals including Hg (liquid oil-fired units, only); individual non-Hg HAP metals; or individual HAP metals including Hg (liquid oil-fired units, only).
2.3.2 In accordance with § 63.10005(d)(2)(i), you must perform the initial stack test no later than the applicable date in § 63.9984(f), and according to §§ 63.10005(d)(2)(iii) and 63.10006(a), the performance test must be repeated annually to document compliance with the emissions limit and to reassess the operating limit.
2.3.3 Calculate the operating limits according to § 63.10023(b)(1) for existing units, and § 63.10023(b)(2) for new units.
2.4
2.4.1 Reduce the output from the PM CPMS to hourly averages, in accordance with § 63.8(g)(2) and (5).
2.4.2 To determine continuous compliance with the operating limit, you must calculate 30-boiler operating day rolling average values of the output from the PM CPMS, in accordance with § 63.10010(h)(3) through (6), § 63.10021(c), and Table 7 to this subpart.
2.4.3 In accordance with § 63.10005(d)(2)(ii), § 63.10022(a)(2), and Table 4 to this subpart, the 30-boiler operating day rolling average PM CPMS output must be maintained at or below the operating limit. However, if exceedances of the operating limit should occur, you must follow the applicable procedures in § 63.10021(c)(1) and (2).
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.1.1 You must develop and maintain a site-specific monitoring plan for your PM CPMS, in accordance with § 63.10000(d).
3.1.1.2 In addition to the site-specific monitoring plan required under § 63.10000(d), you must use the ECMPS Client Tool to prepare and maintain an electronic monitoring plan for your PM CPMS.
3.1.1.2.1
3.1.1.2.2
3.1.2
3.1.2.1 The date and hour;
3.1.2.2 The unit or stack operating time (rounded up to the nearest fraction of an hour (in equal increments that can range from one hundredth to one quarter of an hour, at the option of the owner or operator); and
3.1.2.3 If applicable, a flag to indicate that the hour is an exempt startup or shutdown hour.
3.1.3
3.1.3.1 The date and hour;
3.1.3.2 Monitoring system and component identification codes for the PM CPMS, as provided in the electronic monitoring plan, for each operating hour in which the monitoring system is not out-of-control and a valid value of the output parameter is obtained;
3.1.3.3 The hourly average output from the PM CPMS, for each operating hour in which the monitoring system is not out-of-control and a valid value of the output parameter is obtained, either in milliamps, PM concentration, or other units of measure, as applicable;
3.1.3.4 A special code for each operating hour in which the PM CPMS is out-of-control and a valid value of the output parameter is not obtained; and
3.1.3.5 Percent monitor data availability (PMA) for the PM CPMS, calculated according to § 75.32 of this chapter.
3.1.4
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.1.1 Notifications, in accordance with section 3.2.2 of this appendix;
3.2.1.2 Monitoring plan reporting, in accordance with section 3.2.3 of this appendix;
3.2.1.3 Report submittals, in accordance with sections 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 of this appendix.
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.3.1 Submit the electronic monitoring plan information in section 3.1.1.2.1 of this appendix at least 21 days prior to the date on which the Administrator specifies that electronic reporting of hourly PM CPMS data via ECMPS is required to begin.
3.2.3.2 Whenever an update of the electronic monitoring plan is required, as provided in section 3.1.1.2.2 of this appendix, the updated information must be submitted either prior to or concurrent with the relevant quarterly electronic emissions report.
3.2.3.3 All electronic monitoring plan submittals and updates shall be made to the Administrator using the ECMPS Client Tool.
3.2.3.4 In accordance with § 63.10000(d), you must submit the site-specific monitoring plan described in section 3.1.1.1 of this appendix to the Administrator, if requested.
3.2.4
3.2.4.1 For each affected EGU (or group of EGUs monitored at a common stack) that is subject to the provisions of this appendix, reporting of hourly responses from the PM CPMS will begin either with the first operating hour in the first quarter of 2018 or the first operating hour after completion of the initial stack test that establishes the operating limit, whichever is later. You must then use the ECMPS Client Tool to submit electronic quarterly reports to the Administrator, in an XML format specified by the Administrator, starting with a report for the later of:
3.2.4.1.1 The first calendar quarter of 2018; or
3.2.4.1.2 The calendar quarter in which the initial compliance demonstration begins.
3.2.4.2 The electronic quarterly reports must be submitted within 30 days following the end of each calendar quarter, except for units that have been placed in long-term cold storage (as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter).
3.2.4.3 Each electronic quarterly report shall include the following information:
3.2.4.3.1 The date of report generation;
3.2.4.3.2 Facility identification information; and
3.2.4.3.3 The information in sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of this appendix.
3.2.4.4
3.2.5
3.2.5.1 Report a summary of each test electronically, in XML format, in the relevant quarterly compliance report under § 63.10031(g); and
3.2.5.2 Provide a complete stack test report in PDF format, in accordance with § 63.10031(f) or (h), as applicable.
1.0 You must record the electronic data elements in this appendix that apply to your compliance strategy under this subpart. The applicable data elements in sections 2 through 13 of this appendix must be reported in the quarterly compliance reports required under § 63.10031(g), in an XML format prescribed by the Administrator. For performance stack tests, RATAs, PM CEMS correlations, RRAs and RCAs, the applicable data elements in sections 17 through 21 of this appendix must be reported in an XML format prescribed by the Administrator, and the information in section 22 of this appendix must be reported in PDF format.
2.0
2.1 ORIS Code;
2.2 Facility Registry Identifier;
2.3 Title 40 part;
2.4 Applicable subpart;
2.5 Calendar Year;
2.6 Calendar Quarter; and
2.7 Compliance Indicator.
3.0
3.1 Parameter;
3.2 Test Location ID;
3.3 Test Number;
3.4 Test Begin Date, Hour, and Minute;
3.5 Test End Date, Hour, and Minute;
3.6 Timing of Test;
3.7 Averaging Plan Indicator;
3.8 Averaging Group ID (if applicable);
3.9 Test Method Code;
3.10 Emission Limit, Including Units of Measure;
3.11 Average Pollutant Emission Rate;
3.12 LEE Indicator; and
3.13 LEE Basis (if applicable).
4.1 Parameter Type;
4.2 Operating Limit; and
4.3 Units of Measure.
5.0
5.1 Run Number;
5.2 Run Begin Date, Hour, and Minute;
5.3 Run End Date, Hour, and Minute;
5.4 Pollutant Concentration and units of measure;
5.5 Emission Rate;
5.6 Total Sampling Time; and
5.7 Total Sample Volume.
6.0
6.1 Parameter Type;
6.2 Parameter Source; and
6.3 Parameter Value, including Units of Measure.
7.0
7.1 Parameter Type;
7.2 Parameter Value; and
7.3 Pass/Fail Status.
8.0
8.1 Parameter Being Averaged;
8.2 Averaging Group ID; and
8.3 Unit or Common Stack ID.
9.0
9.1 Unit or Common Stack ID;
9.2 Averaging Group ID (if applicable);
9.3 Parameter Being Averaged;
9.4 Date;
9.5 Average Type;
9.6 Units of Measure; and
9.7 Average Value.
10.0
10.1 Unit ID;
10.2 Unit Type;
10.3 Date of Last Tune-up;
10.4 Date of Last Burner Inspection;
10.5 Each Type of Fuel Used During Each Calendar Month;
10.5.1 Fuel Usage Begin Date;
10.5.2 Fuel Usage End Date;
10.5.3 Quantity of Fuel Consumed;
10.5.4 Units of Measure;
10.5.5 New Fuel Type Indicator;
10.5.6 Date of Performance Test Using the New Fuel (if applicable); and
10.5.7 Non-Waste Fuel Type (if applicable).
11.0
11.1 Event Begin Date and Hour;
11.2 Event End Date and Hour;
11.3 Malfunction Description; and
11.4 Corrective Action Description.
12.0
12.1 The nature of the deviation,
12.1.1 Emission limit exceeded;
12.1.2 Operating limit exceeded;
12.1.3 Work practice standard not met;
12.1.4 Testing requirement not met; or
12.1.5 Monitoring requirement not met;
12.2 A description of the deviation, including the date (or range of dates), the cause (if known), and any corrective actions taken. For monitor downtime incidents, report the percent monitor data availability (PMA) at the end of the quarter and the lowest hourly PMA value recorded during the quarter.
13.0
13.1 The total number of emergency bypass hours for the calendar year, expressed as a percentage of the EGU's annual operating hours;
13.2 A description of each emergency bypass event during the year, including the cause and corrective actions taken; and
13.3 Estimates of the emissions released during the emergency bypass events.
14.0
14.1 Each quarterly, annual, or triennial performance stack test (including 30-boiler operating day Hg LEE tests);
14.2 Each relative accuracy test audit (RATA) of your Hg, HCl, HF, or SO
14.3 Each correlation test, relative response audit (RRA) and each response correlation audit (RCA) of your PM CEMS.
15.0 You must report the applicable data elements for each test described in section 14 of this appendix in an XML format prescribed by the Administrator.
15.1 For each performance stack test completed during a particular calendar quarter and contained in the quarterly compliance report, you must submit along with the quarterly compliance report, the data elements in section 17 of this appendix (which are common to all tests) and the data elements in sections 18 through 21 of this appendix that are associated with the reference method(s) used.
15.2 For each RATA, PM CEMS correlation, RRA, or RCA, when you use the ECMPS Client Tool to report the test results as required under appendix A, B, or C to this subpart or, for SO
15.3 For each performance stack test, RATA, PM CEMS correlation, RRA, and RCA, you must also provide the information described in section 22 of this appendix in PDF format, either along with the quarterly compliance report (for performance stack tests) or together with the test results reported under appendix A, B, or C to this subpart or part 75 of this chapter (for RATAs, RRAs, RCAs, or PM CEMS correlations).
16.0
16.1
16.2
16.3
16.4
16.5
16.6
16.7
16.8
17.0
17.1 Facility Name;
17.2 Facility Address;
17.3 Facility City;
17.4 Facility County;
17.5 Facility State;
17.6 Facility Zip Code;
17.7 Facility Point of Contact;
17.8 Facility Contact Phone Number;
17.9 Facility Contact email;
17.10 EPA Facility Registration System Number (FRS);
17.11 Name of Test Company;
17.12 Test Company Address;
17.13 Test Company City;
17.14 Test Company State;
17.15 Test Company Zip Code;
17.16 Test Company Point of Contact;
17.17 Test Company Contact Phone Number;
17.18 Test Company Contact email;
17.19 State Facility ID;
17.20 Sampling Location;
17.21
17.22 Test Method;
17.23 Process Parameter;
17.24 Duct Diameter (circular stack);
17.25 Equivalent Diameter of rectangular duct;
17.26 Area of Stack;
17.27 Number of Traverse Points;
17.28 Control Device Description;
17.29 Pollutant name;
17.30 Action on Process Material (
17.31 Subpart;
17.32 SCC Code;
17.33 Project Number;
17.34 Emission Concentrations;
17.35 Percent O
17.36 Units of Process Parameter;
17.37 Quantity of Fuel;
17.38 Type of Fuel; and
17.39 BLD, DLL Flag for Detection Limit.
18.0
18.1 Run Number;
18.2 Run Date;
18.3 Clock Time Start;
18.4 Clock Time End;
18.5 Traverse Point;
18.6 Barometric Pressure;
18.7 Static Pressure;
18.8 Pitot Calibration;
18.9 % O
18.10 % CO
18.11 Pressure Reading at Each Traverse Point (ΔP);
18.12 Stack Temperature at Each Traverse Point;
18.13 Dry Basis F-Factor (F
18.14 Wet Basis F-Factor (F
18.15 Percent Moisture—Actual;
18.16 Dry Molecular Weight of Stack Gas;
18.17 Wet Molecular Weight of Stack Gas;
18.18 Stack Gas Velocity—fps;
18.19 Volumetric Flow Rate—scfm;
18.20 Pitot Tube ID;
18.21 Manometer Used;
18.22 Run Elapsed Time at Start (= 0);
18.23 Cumulative Elapsed Sampling Time;
18.24 Orifice Pressure—Actual;
18.25 Calibration Coefficient of Dry Gas Meter;
18.26 Dry Gas Meter Inlet Temperature at Each Traverse Point; and
18.27 Dry Gas Meter Outlet Temperature at Each Traverse Point.
19.0
19.1 Pollutant (analyte);
19.2 Run Number;
19.3 Run Date;
19.4 Method;
19.5 Run Start Time;
19.6 Run End Time;
19.7 Area of Stack;
19.8 Process Parameter Run Data;
19.9 Barometric Pressure;
19.10 Static Pressure;
19.11 Pitot Calibration;
19.12 Volume or Weight of Moisture Collected;
19.13 % O
19.14 % CO
19.15 Pressure Reading at Each Traverse Point (ΔP);
19.16 Stack Temperature at Each Traverse Point;
19.17 Pump Vacuum;
19.18 Process Run ID;
19.19 Process Run Parameter ID;
19.20 Orifice Pressure (Actual) at Each Traverse Point;
19.21 Calibration Coefficient of Dry Gas Meter;
19.22 Nozzle Calibration;
19.23 Initial Volume of Dry Gas Meter;
19.24 Final Volume of Dry Gas Meter;
19.25 Dry Gas Meter Inlet Temperature at Each Traverse Point;
19.26 Dry Gas Meter Outlet Temperature at Each Traverse Point;
19.27 Probe Temperature;
19.28 Filter/Oven Temperature;
19.29 Filter/Oven Exhaust Temperature;
19.30 Mass Collected—For Method 29, Report Both Front Half and Back Half. For Methods 26 and 26A, Report Total Mass of HCl in Sample; and
19.31 Units of Measurement—Mass.
20.0
20.1 Sampling Location;
20.2 Pollutant (analyte);
20.3 Run Number;
20.4 Run Date;
20.5 Method;
20.6 Run Start Time;
20.7 Run End Time;
20.8 Cylinder ID;
20.9 Gas Level (Zero, Low, Mid, High);
20.10 Date of Expiration;
20.11 Compound (Analyte);
20.12 Cylinder Gas Units of Measure;
20.13 % O
20.14 % CO
20.15 Calculated Average Wet Emission Concentration (C
20.16 Process Parameter Run Data;
20.17 Flow Rate (scfm);
20.18 Clock Time;
20.19 Units (ppm, %, etc.);
20.20 Calibration Span Concentration;
20.21 Calibration Zero-level Concentration;
20.22 Calibration Low-level Concentration;
20.23 Calibration Mid-level Concentration;
20.24 Calibration High-level Concentration;
20.25 Zero Gas Response;
20.26 Low Gas Response;
20.27 Mid Gas Response;
20.28 High Gas Response;
20.29 Span Zero Response;
20.30 Span High Response;
20.31 Pre-test Zero Response;
20.32 Pre-test Bias Response;
20.33 Post Zero Response;
20.34 Post Span Bias Response;
20.35 Raw Measured Concentration (C
20.36 Raw Measurement Units;
20.37 Zero Gas Percent Error;
20.38 Low Gas Percent Error;
20.39 Mid Gas Percent Error;
20.40 High Gas Percent Error;
20.41 System Zero Level Calibration Error;
20.42 System High Level Calibration Error;
20.43 Pre-run Zero Bias;
20.44 Pre-run Zero Drift;
20.45 Pre-run High Level Bias, Percent;
20.46 Pre-run High Level Drift;
20.47 Post-run Zero Bias;
20.48 Post-run Zero Drift;
20.49 Post-run High Level Bias;
20.50 Post-run High Level drift;
20.51 Calculated Average Dry Emissions Concentration (C
20.52 Measurement Units of C
20.53 Measurement Units of C
21.0
21.1 Sampling Location;
21.2 Pollutant (analyte);
21.3 Run Number;
21.4 Run Date;
21.5 Method;
21.6 Run Start Time;
21.7 Run End Time;
21.8 Process Parameter Run Data;
21.9 Area of Stack;
21.10 Barometric Pressure;
21.11 Static Pressure;
21.12 %O
21.13 %CO
21.14 Stack Gas Volumetric Flow Rate (dry, standard conditions);
21.15 Stack Gas Temperature;
21.16 Associated Process Run Rate;
21.17 Start Minutes (cumulative);
21.18 End Minutes (cumulative);
21.19 Actual Clock Time;
21.20 Meter Box A or B Correction Factor (Y);
21.21 Pre Leak Check Vacuum (in. Hg);
21.22 Post Leak Check Vacuum (in. Hg);
21.23 Pre Leak Rate;
21.24 Post Leak Rate;
21.25 Gas Sample Volume Units of Measure;
21.26 Hg Mass Units of Measure;
21.27 Dry Gas Meter Reading at Beginning of Sampling, Sampling Train A or B;
21.28 Dry Gas Meter Reading at End of Sampling, Sampling Train A or B;
21.29 Dry Gas Meter Temperature (Train A or B);
21.30 Sampling Rate (Train A or B);
21.31 Pump Vacuum;
21.32 Sorbent Trap ID;
21.33 Mass of Spike on Field Recovery Traps;
21.34 Mass Collected on Section 1 (A or B); and
21.35 Mass Collected on Section 2 (A or B).
22.0
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 |