Page Range | 4945-5036 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
81 FR 5027 - Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 5019 - Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs | |
81 FR 5031 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Unfinished: Thoughts Left Visible” Exhibition | |
81 FR 5031 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Daubigny, Monet, Van Gogh: Impressions of Landscape” Exhibition | |
81 FR 5018 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status, Form I-918, and Supplements A and B of Form I-918; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection | |
81 FR 5025 - Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science Board | |
81 FR 5032 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 5013 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
81 FR 5009 - Procurement List; Deletions | |
81 FR 5009 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions | |
81 FR 5013 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 5033 - Privacy Act of 1974; Amendment of System of Records | |
81 FR 5019 - Renewal of Agency Information Collection for Tribal Self-Governance Program | |
81 FR 5010 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Third Party Testing of Children's Products | |
81 FR 5031 - Central Midland Railway Company-Renewal of Lease Exemption with Interchange Commitment-Union Pacific Railroad Company Lackland Sub-Division | |
81 FR 5016 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 5016 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 5017 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 5017 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 5016 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 5025 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection; eComments Requested; Immigration Practitioner Complaint Form | |
81 FR 5027 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Establish Rules To Comply With the Quoting and Trading Requirements of the Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Plan Submitted to the Commission Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS Under the Act | |
81 FR 5015 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 5014 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 4976 - Nondiscrimination Relief for Closed Defined Benefit Pension Plans and Additional Changes to the Retirement Plan Nondiscrimination Requirements | |
81 FR 4987 - Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: Leak Detection Methodology Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems | |
81 FR 5006 - Arkansas: Final Authorization of State-Initiated Changes and Incorporation by Reference of State Hazardous Waste Management Program | |
81 FR 4961 - Arkansas: Final Authorization of State-Initiated Changes and Incorporation by Reference of Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Program | |
81 FR 4957 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Rules, General Requirements and Test Methods; Utah | |
81 FR 5018 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless | |
81 FR 4945 - Exchange Visitor Program-Teachers | |
81 FR 5007 - Federal Travel Regulation; Optimal Use of the Government Contractor-Issued Travel Charge Card | |
81 FR 4969 - Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions | |
81 FR 4987 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Rules, Public Notice and Comment Process, and Renumbering; Utah | |
81 FR 4959 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Rules, Public Notice and Comment Process, and Renumbering; Utah |
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
National Institutes of Health
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Indian Affairs Bureau
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
U.S. Department of State.
Final rule.
This rule makes final the Department's proposed rule published on May 2, 2013. The Department, with this rule, amends its existing regulations governing the Teacher category of the Exchange Visitor Program. This final rule permits program participation of teachers teaching full-time at accredited public or private primary and secondary schools (K-12), including pre-kindergarten teachers in “language immersion” programs offered as regular courses of study by accredited primary schools; requires exchange teachers to have two years of full-time teaching experience; clarifies that the duration of program participation by exchange teachers is three years, with an extension permitted for one or two additional years of participation based on school need and exchange teacher performance during the exchange; permits participation by otherwise qualified teachers who are not currently working, but who are returning to teaching after successfully pursuing an advanced degree beyond the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree; introduces a required cross-cultural activity component; requires program sponsors to disclose fees and costs to foreign teachers at the time of both recruitment and selection into the program; and implements a requirement that exchange teachers not be eligible for repeat participation unless they reside outside the United States for two years following their teacher exchange program. In amending the Teacher category regulations, the Department: Reforms the teacher exchange program; strengthens provisions designed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of exchange teachers; and reinforces the program's prestige as a world-class U.S. public diplomacy initiative. The rule applies to all J-Nonimmigrant exchange teachers, except when the teacher's program is covered by a separate agreement between the United States and the relevant foreign government as permitted under Department regulations.
This rule is effective on February 29, 2016.
Persons with access to the Internet also may view this rule by going to the regulations.gov Web site at:
The Exchange Visitor Program (of which the Teacher category is one of fifteen categories of program types) is authorized by the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 2451
Educational and cultural exchanges are a cornerstone of U.S. public diplomacy and an integral component of U.S. foreign policy. The purpose of the Teacher category of the Exchange Visitor Program is to promote interchange of American and foreign teachers in public and private schools; enhance mutual understanding between the people of the United States and people of other countries; allow U.S. students who lack opportunities to travel abroad to have early and meaningful relationships with individuals from other cultures; provide visiting teachers an opportunity to expand their understanding of U.S. education, culture and society; provide U.S. teachers with a greater understanding of international teaching practices by their working alongside foreign colleagues; and create opportunities to develop lasting links between U.S. and foreign schools and communities.
These regulations govern exchange teachers who teach full-time in accredited primary and secondary public and private schools in the United States (including pre-kindergarten level “language immersion” programs offered as a regular course of study by accredited primary schools). Exchange teachers have the opportunity to broaden their pedagogical knowledge while in the United States and foster meaningful relationships with American citizens through their participation in U.S. schools and communities, returning home within a defined time-period to share their experiences in their own country's educational system.
It is equally important that public and private schools hosting foreign exchange teachers have the responsibility and intent to create a holistic cultural program and contemplate the overall experience that these teachers will take back to their home countries. The Department supports the hosting of exchange teachers to help U.S. students understand other cultures and comprehend global issues, as well as to promote study of foreign languages and culture. Native speakers add a vital dimension to foreign language instruction. Speaking another language
In recent years, the Department has been strengthening the regulations throughout the Exchange Visitor Program to require sponsors to ensure, among other things, that their individual exchange visitor programs are consistent with the purpose of the Act. The Teacher exchange program is not to be used to recruit and train foreign teachers for permanent employment in the United States. The amended Teacher category regulations make clear that exchange teachers are expected to work on a temporary basis at the host school. Because the Exchange Visitor Program is an educational and cultural program, sponsors must ensure that an exchange teacher's appointment at the host school is temporary, even if the teaching position is permanent.
The Department requires sponsors to ensure that exchange teachers, including pre-kindergarten “language immersion” teachers, are placed only in accredited primary and secondary schools. In addition, a foreign national may be admitted to the United States as a J-1 nonimmigrant in the Teacher category only for the purpose of full-time teaching as a teacher of record, not as a teacher's assistant/aide, substitute teacher, or other non-instructional position, at an accredited primary or secondary school.
The Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with a request for comment on May 2, 2013 (RIN 1400-AC60; see 78 FR 25669). The Department received 60 comments in response to the proposed rule. Many of those commenting discussed multiple topics. Following a review of these comments, the Department has decided to adopt the proposed rule with some modifications prompted by the comments.
The Department believes that the benefits of fee and cost transparency outweigh any possible duplication or additional activities required to gather fee and cost estimates and provide them to potential exchange visitors. When sponsors and host schools rely upon exchange visitors to conduct independent research on Web sites to locate key information about their exchange program and conditions of their host placement, these sponsors and schools cannot be sure that the information exchange visitors find through their research is accurate or comprehensive. In requiring the sponsor and host school to provide a summary of significant program components, fees, and other costs during the advertising phase and also prior to the exchange teacher's signing of his or her contract with the host school, the Department ensures that the exchange teacher has received from the program sponsor at two crucial points a basic summary (and understanding) of the main programmatic and financial obligations and responsibilities he or she undertakes by participating in an exchange. These requirements also will allow all parties involved or interested in the Exchange Visitor Program to ascertain in advance if fees and costs seem excessive or if additional costs will be charged to the teacher.
The Department is of the view that various program fees, deductions from wages, and costs charged to exchange teachers by sponsors, third parties, partners, and host schools, if not fully disclosed, could make exchange teachers vulnerable to unexpected program costs. The Department, through its regular communications with sponsors, participating exchange teachers, and host schools during the course of its formal program monitoring efforts, has been made aware of many cases where, after expenses and deductions, exchange teachers' take-home pay, contrary to what those teachers originally expected, was an insufficient amount of money on which to live in the United States or to defray the cost associated with the exchange. Moreover, because the Department works with program sponsors on an ongoing basis, it is aware that program recruitment and placement fees may vary widely depending upon the exchange teacher's country of origin. In addition, the cost of living, including housing and local transportation costs, varies in the different U.S. host communities where an exchange teacher may be placed.
This regulation will require sponsors, first, to post a general summary of fees and other costs teachers can expect to pay while they are on exchange in one visible location on their main Web sites and in their recruiting materials, in order to ensure fee and cost transparency at the time of exchange teacher recruitment. This general summary of fees and other costs at the time of recruitment must include, at a minimum, sponsor fees; placement fees; visa fees; Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) fees; insurance costs based on the requirements of 22 CFR 62.14; estimates (ranges) for food, housing and local transportation costs; foreign and domestic third party fees; expected work-related deductions (
Second, at the time the official selection letter is sent to the teacher, sponsors must themselves, or must ensure that host schools, provide, in either the teacher's contract and/or through supplemental information, each individual exchange teacher with the name, location, and a brief description of the host school; the terms and conditions of compensation (with estimated deductions from gross salary); any provisions affecting the ability of the teacher to be accompanied abroad by a spouse or dependents (including any related assistance and allowances); a summary of the significant components of the program (including a statement of the teaching requirements, related professional obligations and required cross-cultural activity component); specific information on the fees and costs that the exchange teacher will be responsible for while on exchange in that school district; anticipated housing options and cost implications; specific local transportation options between the exchange teacher's residence and the host school and their estimated costs; insurance costs for accident and illness coverage, repatriation of remains, and
As set forth at 22 CFR 62.24(f)(5), unless an exchange teacher is on a program where the Department is the sponsor, he or she must be employed by and under the direct supervision and guidance of his or her host school and, where applicable, the host school district. As set forth at 22 CFR 62.24(g)(2), unless the exchange teacher is supported through government funding, through continued support from the exchange teacher's home school, or through a combination of the exchange teacher's home and host school, compensation must be paid directly by the host school(s) or host school district in which the exchange teacher is placed. For example, unless the sponsor is also the host school, a sponsor cannot receive the exchange teacher's salary from a host school or host school district and then pay it on to the exchange teacher (often with deductions for previously undisclosed fees and costs), as may be the practice currently in some teacher exchange programs.
The mission of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, which oversees the Exchange Visitor Program under the Fulbright-Hays Act, is to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries through educational and cultural exchanges that support the development of peaceful relations. In keeping with this authority, the Department wishes to ensure that its visiting teachers come in contact with and convey knowledge to large numbers of U.S. students and community members. The Department is of the view that a dialogue of ideas should ensue from the Teacher exchange program and that, regardless of where in the United States a teacher is placed, a mandatory cross-cultural activity component will help students in the exchange teacher's classroom, and in the broader host school and its community, develop global awareness and interest in learning more about other countries. Moreover, not all exchange teachers participating in the program are placed in schools that already have an overall international focus.
Other comments supported mandating a cross-cultural activity component in order for communities to learn more about the unique contributions of the exchange teacher. The Department agrees that required cross-cultural activity components are valuable tools not only to engage exchange teachers in their host communities—both inside and outside of their schools—but also to inform their host communities about their cultures.
Whatever the placement setting, the sponsor, host school and exchange teacher should work together to develop creative cross-cultural activity components, whether it be in the teacher's individual classroom, within the larger host school, or in the host school district or community. One example of developing a creative cross-cultural activity for the host school district or community could be to have exchange teachers make a presentation in a public forum (
In order to ensure meaningful accountability on the part of exchange teachers, sponsors must require exchange teachers to submit an annual report, one element of which should detail the cross-cultural activity component of their exchange program. The report does not have to be in a specific format, but must contain specific fields of information as identified in these regulations (
The Department recognizes, as some comments pointed out, that exchange teachers come to the United States from foreign countries that prepare their teachers in educational systems that are different from that of the United States, with some systems having very different time periods that it takes teacher candidates to receive a degree. The Department believes that two years of teaching experience, combined with a degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree (which may be proven by the applicant, for example, through use of a credential evaluation service), would be sufficient requirements for program participation. This teaching experience must not be as a student teacher, but as a teacher of record in a foreign school; however, the two years of experience may be non-consecutive. All U.S. states currently require their teachers to have a bachelor's degree, and while the Department recognizes differences in teacher education systems around the world and, therefore, does not require its foreign teachers to have a bachelor's degree, it is of the view that requiring foreign teachers to have the equivalent of a bachelor's degree from their own educational system will ensure that they are considered equally qualified with U.S. teachers in host schools across the United States.
A number of comments made the point that the Department should permit in the program teachers who are not currently teaching but have recent teaching experience. The Teacher exchange program is not an employment program, but an educational exchange experience that has a reciprocal element as one of its goals. In the Teacher exchange category, currently working teachers bring to the program opportunities to link their home and host schools and communities through projects and other contributions to mutual understanding. It is anticipated that the exchange experience will give exchange teachers the opportunity to share their experiences with their home school students through virtual linkages and when they return home.
Other comments expressed concern that by requiring teachers to be working at the time of application, the program would exclude potentially highly qualified candidates who have the requisite teaching experience, but have not been working because they have been pursuing an advanced degree. The Department agrees and wishes to facilitate the exchange of teachers who have continued their education beyond a degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. The Department agrees that an international teaching experience would be a valuable additional educational benefit to teachers completing advanced degrees. For this reason, this final rule makes one exception to the requirement that applicants must be working as teachers at the time of application. Applicants who are not currently working may participate in the program if they: (i) Have at least a degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, (ii) have two years of teaching experience within the past eight years, and (iii) have successfully completed an advanced degree beyond a U.S. bachelor's degree-equivalent within one year of the date upon which their program application is submitted, even if they are not currently teaching. The advanced degree must be in the subject field (or a closely related one) that the exchange teacher proposes to teach while in the United States, or in the field of education. In making this exception, the Department acknowledges that potential exchange teachers might wish to complete an advanced degree and follow-up this degree by taking the opportunity to teach abroad for a period of time soon thereafter, before they continue their teaching careers in their home countries. Sponsors must require teachers who are not currently working, but are participating in the program by virtue of having recently completed an advanced degree, to locate and cooperate with a school, preferably in their home country and at their teaching level, in order to conduct the required international dialogue or virtual aspect of the cross-cultural activity component while on exchange. Sponsors must require candidates for the program, before they submit their application to a sponsor, to take the additional steps necessary to make arrangements with a suitable school outside the United States with which they could, if accepted to the program, complete the required cultural activity component.
The Department believes that a program duration of three years is most consistent with the goals and mission of the Teacher exchange, namely to encourage exchange teachers to learn new skills and perspectives while teaching in the United States, and then return to their home countries and foster ties between schools in their home countries and their host schools in the United States. However, the Department recognizes that program extensions beyond the three-year duration may be necessary or desirable where the exchange teacher has carried out his or her program requirements in a particularly effective way at the U.S. host school. Accordingly, sponsors may apply to the Department on behalf of a host school to extend an exchange teacher's program duration by one or two additional years. In permitting extensions of up to two years, the Department will not authorize exchange teachers to extend their stay by fractions of academic years. The Department believes this would result in considerable administrative complexity to both home and host schools attempting to make international teacher exchanges possible. In addition, having exchange teachers extend for fractions of years might be disruptive to students. Extension requests must contain documentation showing that the school has a particular need for the exchange teacher to remain, that the exchange teacher can be recommended for extension based on professional performance at the host school, and that the exchange teacher has fulfilled all aspects of the cross-cultural activity component. Instructions for requesting a program extension may be found on the Department's J-Visa Web site (
The Department is of the opinion that the Exchange Visitor Program is a foreign affairs function of the U.S. Government, and that rules implementing this function are exempt from section 553 (Rulemaking) and section 554 (Adjudications) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). U.S. government policy and longstanding practice have been for the Department to oversee foreign nationals who come to the United States as participants in exchange visitor programs, either directly or through private sector program sponsors or grantee organizations. When problems arise, the U.S. Government is often held accountable by foreign governments for the treatment of their nationals, regardless of who is responsible for the problems. The purpose of this rule is to protect the health, safety and welfare of foreign nationals entering the United States (often on programs funded by the U.S. Government) for a finite period of time and with a view that they will return to their countries of nationality upon completion of their programs. The Department is of the opinion that failure to protect the health, safety and welfare of these foreign nationals would have direct and substantial adverse effects on the foreign affairs of the United States. Although the Department is of the opinion that this rule is exempt from the rulemaking provisions of the APA, the Department nevertheless published a proposed rule on May 2, 2013, with a 60-day provision for public comment and without prejudice to its determination that the Exchange Visitor Program is a foreign affairs function.
This regulation is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 for the purposes of Congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801-808). This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of U.S.-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
This regulation will not result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in any
The Department has determined that this regulation 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.
Since the Department is of the opinion that this rule is exempt from section 553 (Rulemaking) and section 554 (Adjudications) of the APA, the Department is also of the opinion that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Of the 54 currently-designated sponsors in the Teacher category of the Exchange Visitor Program, 16 are corporate, academic and tax-exempt program sponsors with annual revenues of less than $7 million. These 16 small sponsors accounted for around 800, or approximately 32 percent, of the total active 2,500 participants in the Teacher category in calendar year 2014 and 384 of the new exchange teachers beginning the program. The Department estimates that exchange teachers associated with small sponsors may account for as many as 1,280 of the 4,000 active participants in 2016 and beyond, once the option to extend is offered to exchange teachers, calculated as follows: 1,200 multiplied by three years for new exchange teachers minus 100 teachers who are estimated not to continue on to three years as expected, plus an estimated total of 500 exchange teachers on extension (250 in extension status per year in years four and five) equals 4,000 total exchange teachers. Multiplying this total by 0.32 equals an expected 1,280 exchange teachers affiliated with sponsors that are small businesses.
Sponsors already are required to screen applicants for eligibility (including the two-year home stay requirement through SEVIS); verify that applicants are currently working as teachers; verify their English language proficiency; and confirm their receipt of, at a minimum, a degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree. Department collections already include 1.5 hours for selection (screening, verifying language proficiency, and confirming degree). Sponsors also must check prospective host school attestations that their exchange teacher appointments are temporary, that the teacher's salary will fall within the range paid to U.S. teachers, and that the exchange teacher will satisfy the teaching eligibility standards of the U.S. state in which he or she will teach. These requirements will add 0.5 hours multiplied by $31.50 weighted wage for sponsors multiplied by 384 placement schools, or an additional total of $6,048 annually. The amount of $31.50 is based upon average weekly earnings for middle-range employees in the educational non-profit sector according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or around $24.20 per hour and benefits of around 30 percent of salary. In addition, host schools will have a 0.5 hour burden to write these attestations, which totals $8,279, based on the average weighted wage of $43.12 for middle-range U.S. public school administrators, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the national salary comparison Web site Payscale (
Under the amended regulation, sponsors must verify that exchange teachers qualifying with an advanced degree have earned such a degree within the past 12 months in education or in the subject field (or closely related subject field) that the applicant would teach on exchange. They also will need to verify that the exchange teacher's application package includes a letter from the head of a school in another country, preferably the teacher's home country, which states that school's willingness to work with the exchange teacher on the cross-cultural component of the exchange. These items are not expected to add greatly to a sponsor's screening responsibilities. Sponsors would already regularly screen for the teacher's academic, linguistic, and other credentials; this added screening is simply for a higher level of academic credential and verification that the cross-cultural component letter has been submitted for the applicant.
As set forth at 22 CFR 62.24(f)(1), sponsors must ensure that Forms DS-2019 are not issued until potential exchange teachers have received and accepted written offers of full-time teaching positions from the accredited primary (including pre-kindergarten level) or secondary schools in which they will teach. It is estimated that host schools and sponsors associated with the programs of small sponsors will each spend 30 minutes either writing or reviewing such offer letters. For sponsors, the Department estimates an aggregate burden of $6,048 (384 new teachers multiplied by 0.5 hours multiplied by $31.50 per hour weighted wage). This is not a new cost. For host schools, the Department estimates an aggregate burden of $8,279 (384 new teachers multiplied by $43.12 weighted wage of the average U.S. public school administrator multiplied by 0.5 hours).
In regard to program extensions, as set forth at 22 CFR 62.24(k), sponsors must review host school extension letters and supporting materials, send extension applications they support to the Department for review, and notify host schools regarding the status of their extension requests. The Department estimates that these additional collection requirements will cost $2,520, one hour burden multiplied by the hourly weighted wage of $31.50 for an estimated 250 extending exchange teachers; or $2,520 for the 32 percent of 250 yearly extending exchange teachers or 80 exchange teachers, who are likely to be affiliated with small sponsor organizations. It is estimated that the hour burden to host schools affiliated with small sponsors to submit letters for teachers extending to a fourth or fifth year is $3,450 (80 exchange teachers multiplied by $43.12 weighted wage for a school administrator multiplied by one hour). In addition, small sponsors may incur an estimated $400 per year associated with keeping records for
22 CFR 62.24(g) requires sponsors to disclose fees and costs to exchange teachers at the time of their recruitment, selection into the program, and signing of their contracts with host schools. Department collections already include 0.5 burden hours for program disclosure by sponsors. The Department estimates total requirements in this area annually will cost $12,096 (384 new exchange teachers associated with small sponsors multiplied by $31.50 weighted wage multiplied by a total of one hour), or new costs of $6,048 (384 new exchange teachers associated with small sponsors multiplied by $31.50 weighted wage multiplied by a total of 0.5 hours).
The final rule at 22 CFR 62.24(h) requires sponsors to assist exchange teachers with their cross-cultural activity components and to collect exchange teachers' annual reports detailing their fulfillment of the required cross-cultural activity components. The Department estimates that this assistance and the collection of these reports annually will cost $40,320, or one burden hour at $31.50 weighted hourly wage multiplied by 1,280 teachers affiliated with small sponsors (32 percent of 4,000) multiplied by one hour, or new costs of $20,160, or 0.5 burden hours at $31.50 weighted hourly wage multiplied by 1,280 exchange teachers affiliated with small sponsors.
In addition, small sponsor cataloguing and storing of annual reports with cross-cultural activity components would cost small sponsors $11,200 annually (7,000 reports requiring storage multiplied by 0.32 multiplied by $5 per report). The $5 annual cost is based upon conservative private sector estimates of onsite record storage in the office environment per cubic foot of records. The Department estimates that each annual report, with paper and other addenda, could take up to one-quarter cubic feet of space.
The Department is of the opinion that the Exchange Visitor Program is a foreign affairs function of the U.S. Government, and that rules governing the conduct of this function are exempt from the requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. The Department has nevertheless reviewed these regulations to ensure their consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in those Executive Orders and submitted the rule to the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The regulations governing the Teacher category of the Exchange Visitor Program were last amended on March 19, 1993.
First, the regulations set forth in this final rule include a requirement for sponsors to provide full transparency on all fees and costs associated with teacher exchanges. The Department believes that requiring sponsors to provide foreign teachers at the time of recruitment with a comprehensive summary of total program fees and costs would greatly enhance transparency and better ensure that exchange teachers understand the financial obligations they assume when choosing to participate in the Exchange Visitor Program. The Department believes that sponsors already prepare such comprehensive summaries as a business practice. The cost of this requirement will come from adding a summary to the existing sponsor application and Web site and disseminating this fee and cost summary to the individual exchange teacher at the time of selection into the program, and is estimated at one hour, or 0.5 additional burden hours, for an estimated 4,000 sponsor collections from host schools to disclose fee and cost information multiplied by $31.50 sponsor weighted wage, or $126,000 divided by two, or a $63,000 new cost.
Second, both exchange teachers and sponsors will accrue costs from the application process. Foreign teacher applicants who are chosen for the Teacher program must demonstrate that they meet the eligibility and selection requirements set forth in 22 CFR 62.24(d)-(e), including demonstrating their qualifications for teaching at either the primary, including pre-kindergarten, or secondary levels in schools in their home country; that they are working as a teacher in their home country at the time of application; and that they have at least two years of full-time teaching experience. They must show that they have, at a minimum, a degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in either education or the academic subject field in which they plan to teach. They also must demonstrate that they have the requisite English language proficiency, provide references to their good character, and ensure that they meet the teaching requirements of the U.S. state in which they are placed, under the requirements of 22 CFR 62.24(d)-(e). It is anticipated that it will take 1,200 new exchange teachers six hours for a total of 7,200 hours to document their eligibility at $26.26 per hour weighted wage for a total cost of $189,072. The figure of $26.26 weighted wage per hour for exchange teachers approximates, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the private sector Teacher Portal (a Web site summarizing teacher salaries nationwide at
Sponsors must screen exchange teachers before accepting them for the program and placing them in a suitable host school. Sponsors, therefore, must verify the educational and other qualifications of each foreign teacher applicant to determine whether he or she satisfies all selection criteria; review references for each foreign teacher attesting to that teacher's good reputation, character and teaching skills; ensure that each selected foreign teacher possesses sufficient proficiency in the English language to function in American classrooms as well as on a day-to-day basis; check, if applicable, that a home school letter stating the school's willingness to work with the exchange teacher on a cross-cultural component has been submitted; check that host schools appoint exchange teachers to temporary positions and that these teachers' salaries fall within the range paid to U.S. teachers; and verify that each exchange teacher meets the requirements of the state in which he or she will teach. It is estimated that 54 sponsors will need 2 hours, an increase of 0.5 hours, to review 1,200 successful exchange teacher applications at $31.50 weighted wage for a total cost of $75,600 (and total new costs of $18,900).
Third, an exchange teacher who qualifies for the program by virtue of having completed an advanced degree in education or in an academic subject matter that he or she intends to teach or that is directly related to his or her teaching subject field (see 22 CFR 62.24(d)(1)(ii)) also must provide a letter from the head of a school (or another individual in an appropriate position of authority to speak for the school within the foreign country's school system) in another country, preferably that exchange teacher's home country, which states that school's willingness to work with the exchange teacher on the cross-cultural component. It will take an estimated 50 exchange teachers two hours to organize receipt of such a letter within their home country, to include a translation if not in English, and provide the letter as part of their application package, at $26.26 weighted wage multiplied by 50 multiplied by two burden hours, for a total of $2,626.
Fourth, sponsors must ensure that Forms DS-2019 are not issued until potential exchange teachers have received and accepted written offers of full-time teaching positions from the accredited primary (including pre-kindergarten level) or secondary schools in which they will teach. This is not a new cost for sponsors. Sponsors will need to collect written offers of each exchange teacher's fulltime teaching position from the placement schools, and these placement schools will need to provide the written offer letters, estimated at a 0.5 hour burden. Furthermore, host schools will have an additional 0.5 hour burden to attest that exchange teacher appointments to positions within accredited primary or secondary schools are temporary, even if the teaching positions are permanent, and do not lead to tenure; and that these positions have duties, responsibilities, hours of employment and compensation commensurate with those of similarly-situated U.S. teachers in the school district or host school where that exchange teacher is assigned to teach. The cost to host schools is estimated at $51,774 annually ($43.12 weighted wage for a middle level school administrator multiplied by one hour multiplied by 1,200 schools) and the cost to sponsors at $18,900 ($31.50 weighted wage multiplied by 0.5 hours multiplied by 1,200 new exchange teachers).
In addition, it is estimated that host schools, numbering around 250, that wish to extend their exchange teacher's program into the fourth or fifth year, will need one hour to fulfill extension requirements, estimated at $43.12 multiplied by 250, for a total cost of $10,780. Sponsors will need to review these applications, estimated to take one hour at a weighted wage of $31.50 multiplied by 250, for a total cost of $7,875. This is a new cost for sponsors. Sponsors also will need to keep on file the criteria and supporting documentation justifying exchange teacher extensions for no less than three years. Recordkeeping costs for keeping 250 extension requests on file annually at $5 per exchange teacher result in a total for all sponsors of $1,250. The cost is based on average private sector estimates of file storage costs in an office environment per one-quarter-cubic foot of files.
Finally, to ensure that this program remains an educational and cultural exchange program, the Department mandates that exchange teachers organize an activity in a public setting where there is direct interaction with host school students or with the host community and, in addition, organize an activity that involves U.S. students in a dialogue or other activity with schools or students in another country, preferably the exchange teacher's home school. It is estimated that it will take an exchange teacher three hours to perform the cross-cultural activity component and file his or her report with the sponsor, at $26.26 weighted wage multiplied by 4,000 teachers, for a total of $315,120 annually. In addition, the Department estimates that it will take sponsors one hour, a 0.5 hour increase, to assist the exchange teacher with the cross-cultural component and review these reports, which, at $31.50 per hour weighted wage for up to 4,000 reports, will total $126,000 annually (or $63,000 in new costs). Recordkeeping for sponsors' maintenance of cross-cultural reports on file for three years (an estimated 7,000 files multiplied by $5 per exchange teacher) comes to a total of $35,000 annually or $105,000 over the required three years of retention. The cost is based on average private sector estimates of file storage costs in an office environment per one-quarter cubic foot of files or by electronic means.
Teacher exchange programs conducted under the authorities of the Exchange Visitor Program promote mutual understanding by providing foreign teachers the opportunity to teach in U.S. primary and secondary schools and participate in daily educational curricula in the United States. Foreign teachers participating in the Exchange Visitor Program gain an understanding of and an appreciation for the similarities and differences between their own cultures and that of the United States. Upon their return home, these teachers enrich their schools and communities with their fresh perspectives of U.S. culture. Teacher exchanges also foster enduring relationships and lifelong friendships that help build longstanding ties between the people of the United States and other countries. In reciprocal fashion, U.S. primary and secondary school teachers and students are provided opportunities to increase their knowledge and understanding of the world through these friendships.
Although the benefits of these exchanges to the United States and its people cannot be monetized, the Department is nonetheless of the opinion that such benefits far outweigh the costs associated with this regulation. The non-monetary benefits to the Teacher exchange program contained in this rule are many: In conducting a cross-cultural component, the exchange teacher will acquaint a wide number of students in the host school and members of the host community with the teacher's home culture, and students in the exchange teacher's home and host countries will have the opportunity to learn about each other's cultures. In addition, requiring sponsors to disclose
The Department has reviewed this rulemaking in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burdens.
Acknowledging that the administration of schools is primarily a state function, the Department finds that this regulation will not have substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationships 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 section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Executive Order 12372, regarding intergovernmental consultation on federal programs and activities, does not apply to this rule.
This rule requires new collection of information by sponsors for screening, program disclosure, the cross-cultural component, and program extensions under an existing collection. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, all agencies are required to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval the reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in any rule covered under the PRA. The information collection requirements contained in this rulemaking are issued pursuant to the PRA and OMB Control Number 1405-0147, and consist of Form DS-7000 (within the overall collection that includes Forms DS-3036, DS-3037 and DS-7000).
The Department submitted an information collection request to OMB for Forms DS-3036, DS-3037 and DS-7000 in spring 2014 for review and approval under the PRA, and did not receive substantive comments on the collection. The collection renewal was approved by the OMB on March 21, 2014. The changes requested here were not added to the collection at that time because the collection would have expired before the final Teacher rule would enter into effect. The Department received comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that touched on the paperwork burden associated with the proposed rule. These comments were addressed in the supplementary information section.
No amendments are required under this rulemaking for Forms DS-3036 and DS-3037, but amendments are requested under this rulemaking for Form DS-7000.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to the Office of Policy and Program Support, ECA/EC, SA-5, Floor 5, U.S. Department of State, 2200 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-0505; fax: (202) 632-2701; email:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The estimate of the total new annual burden for sponsors for the Teacher section of 22 CFR part 62 is two and one-half hours. Previously, a non-weighted wage of $20 was used to calculate sponsor costs for Form DS-7000. Therefore, some of the cost increase indicated in this rule stems from using the higher
• Provision by sponsors, at the time of recruitment and selection, of a summary of total fees and costs as set forth by 22 CFR 62.24(g): $126,000 total costs, of which $63,000 are new costs. (0.5 hours new or one hour total burden hours multiplied by 4,000 host schools to gather information on fees and costs for recruitment and provide information on fees and costs to selected teachers from this data at $31.50 weighted wage).
• Document collection by potential exchange teachers to prove their eligibility under 22 CFR 62.24(d)-(e):
• Sponsor screening of exchange teachers before accepting them for the program and matching them to a suitable host school under 22 CFR 62.24(d)-(f): $75,600, of which $18,900 are new costs. (0.5 new and two hours total burden multiplied by review of 1,200 exchange teacher files multiplied by $31.50 weighted wage).
• Documentation to be provided, including translation, if applicable, by exchange teachers qualifying for the program by virtue of having completed an advanced degree as set forth at 22 CFR 62.24(d)(1)(ii): $2,626 (Two hours multiplied by 50 exchange teachers multiplied by $26.26 weighted wage).
• Sponsor verification that Forms DS-2019 are not issued until potential exchange teachers have received and accepted written offers of full-time teaching positions from the accredited host school, as set forth at 22 CFR 62.24(f)(1): $18,900. This is not a new cost. (0.5 hours multiplied by 1,200 exchange teachers at $31.50 weighted wage).
• Host School provision of written offer letters of full-time teaching and attestations of temporary status of teaching positions and commensurateness of compensation at 22 CFR 62.24(f)(1) and (4)-(5): $51,744. (One hour multiplied by 1,200 schools hosting exchange teachers at $43.12 weighted wage).
• Host schools that wish to extend their exchange teacher's program into a fourth and/or fifth year will need to provide documentation to the sponsor as set forth at 22 CFR 62.24(k): $10,780. (One hour to fulfill extension requirements multiplied by 250 exchange teachers at $43.12 weighted wage).
• Sponsor review of host school request for extension as set forth at 22 CFR 62.24(k): $7,875 in new costs. (One hour to fulfill extension requirements multiplied by 250 exchange teachers at $31.50 weighted wage).
• Exchange teacher organization of the cross-cultural program component and writing of related report under 22 CFR 62.24(h): $315,120. (Three hours multiplied by 4,000 exchange teachers on program at $26.26 weighted wage).
• Sponsor assistance to exchange teachers on the cross-cultural component and review of their reports under 22 CFR 62.24(h): $126,000, of which $63,000 are new costs. (One hour multiplied by 4,000 exchange teachers at $31.50 weighted wage).
Additional new annual record-keeping is as follows:
• Recordkeeping for exchange teachers on extension: 250 files of extending exchange teachers annually at $5 per file to equal $1,250, which are new costs.
• Storing annual report with cross-cultural component: 7,000 exchange teachers multiplied by $5 per teacher to equal $35,000, which are new costs.
The collection is the continuation of information collected and needed by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs in administering the Exchange Visitor Program (J-Nonimmigrant) under the provisions of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 2451
The Department requires sponsors under 22 CFR 62.24(g) to provide foreign teachers at the time of recruitment and again at the time of selection with a summary of program fees and costs, thereby enhancing transparency and better ensuring that exchange teachers understand the financial obligations they assume when choosing to participate in the Exchange Visitor Program. The cost of this requirement will come from adding a summary to the existing sponsor recruiting materials and Web site and disseminating this fee and cost summary to the individual exchange teacher at the time of selection into the program.
Successful foreign teacher applicants must demonstrate to the sponsor, as set forth under 22 CFR 62.24(d)-(e), that they meet qualifications for teaching at the primary, including pre-kindergarten, or secondary levels in schools in their home country; are working as a teacher in their home country at the time of application; and have at least two years of full-time teaching experience. They must show that they have, at a minimum, a degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in either education or the academic subject field in which they plan to teach, demonstrate English language proficiency, provide references to their good character, and ensure that they meet the teaching requirements of the U.S. state in which they are placed. An exchange teacher who qualifies for the program by virtue of having completed an advanced degree in education or in an academic subject matter that he or she intends to teach or that is directly related to his or her teaching subject field must provide, under 22 CFR 62.24(e)(4), a letter signed by the head of a school (or another individual in an appropriate position of authority to speak for the school within the foreign country's school system) in another country, preferably that exchange teacher's home country, which states that school's willingness to work with the exchange teacher on the cultural component.
In addition, as set forth in 22 CFR 62.24(d)-(f), sponsors must screen prospective exchange teachers before accepting them for the program and must match them with a suitable host school. Such screening includes verifying the educational and other qualifications of each foreign teacher applicant to determine whether he or she satisfies all selection criteria; reviewing references for each foreign teacher attesting to that teacher's good reputation, character, and teaching skills; ensuring that each selected foreign teacher possesses sufficient proficiency in the English language to function in American classrooms as well as on a day-to-day basis; checking, if applicable, that a home school letter stating that school's willingness to work with the exchange teacher on a cross-cultural component has been submitted; checking that host schools appoint exchange teachers to temporary positions and that these teachers' salaries fall within the range paid to similarly-situated U.S. teachers; and verifying that each foreign teacher meets the requirements of the state in which he or she will teach, including criminal background check requirements.
Host schools, as set forth at 22 CFR 62.24(f)(1), will need to provide the sponsor written offers of each exchange teacher's full-time teaching position from the placement schools. In addition, host schools that wish to extend their exchange teacher's program into the fourth or fifth year will need to have sponsors apply on their behalf to the Department for an extension, as set forth in 22 CFR 62.24(k). As also set forth in 22 CFR 62.24(k), sponsors will need to collect and submit extension requests to the Department and reply to the host school.
Finally, to ensure that this program remains an educational and cultural exchange program, the Department mandates under 22 CFR 62.24(h) that exchange teachers organize an activity in a public setting where there is direct interaction with host school students or with the host community and, in addition, involve U.S. students in a dialogue or other activity with schools or students in another country, preferably with the exchange teacher's home school. Additional costs will accrue to sponsors, who will need to assist exchange teachers with the cross-
The total number of sponsor organizations designated by the Department to conduct teacher exchange program activities is 54. Around 1,200 new exchange teachers are expected annually in the Teacher exchange category to conduct exchanges in a similar number of new host schools, with an estimated 2,300 additional exchange teachers and host schools continuing their exchange on three year programs, and 250 exchange teachers annually extending their exchanges times two years, the duration of the permissible extension period, equaling an additional 500 exchange teachers, for a total of up to 4,000 exchange teachers in the United States at a given time.
Cultural exchange programs; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 22 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:
8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J), 1182, 1184, 1258; 22 U.S.C. 1431
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(d)
(1) Either:
(i) Meets the qualifications for teaching at the primary, including pre-kindergarten, or secondary levels in schools in his or her home country; is working as a teacher in his or her home country at the time of application; and has at least two years of full-time teaching experience; or
(ii) Is not working as a teacher in his or her home country at the time of application, but otherwise meets the qualifications for teaching at the primary (including pre-kindergarten) or secondary levels in schools in the home country; has had at least two years of full-time teaching experience within the past eight years; and, within 12 months of his or her application submission date for the program, has or will have completed an advanced degree (beyond a degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree) in education or in an academic subject matter that he or she intends to teach or that is directly related to his or her teaching subject field;
(2) Possesses, at a minimum, a degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in either education or the academic subject field in which he or she intends to teach;
(3) Satisfies the teaching eligibility standards of the U.S. state in which he or she will teach (
(4) Is of good reputation and character; and
(5) Agrees to come to the United States temporarily as a full-time teacher of record in an accredited primary or secondary school. Exchange teachers may teach a variety of subjects and levels at their host school or schools, if qualified, but at the pre-kindergarten level, may teach only in language immersion programs.
(e)
(1) Verify the qualifications of each foreign teacher to determine whether he or she satisfies the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of this section;
(2) Secure references from one colleague and one current or former supervisor of each foreign teacher, attesting to that teacher's good reputation, character and teaching skills;
(3) Verify that each selected foreign teacher applicant possesses sufficient proficiency in the English language to function in U.S. classrooms and to function on a day-to-day basis, in accordance with the provision for selection of exchange visitors set forth at § 62.10(a)(2); and
(4) Verify that each foreign teacher who is eligible for the program under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section has a letter from the head of a school in another country, preferably that teacher's home country, which states that school's willingness to work with the exchange teacher on the cross-cultural activity component set forth in paragraph (h)(1)(ii). The foreign school with which the exchange teacher plans to work must be at the same academic level as the foreign teacher's proposed host school. The letter submitted as part of the foreign teacher's application package must be signed by the head of the school or another individual in an appropriate position of authority to speak for the school within the foreign country's school system; the official signing the letter must list both email and telephone contact information. The letter may be submitted in English or in the original language of the home country with an English translation; the name, title/organization and contact information of the translator must be noted on the translation.
(f)
(1) Forms DS-2019 are not issued until foreign teacher applicants have received and accepted written offers of full-time teaching positions from the accredited primary (including pre-kindergarten level) or secondary schools in which they will teach;
(2) Program dates coincide with the U.S. academic year cycle to ensure a smooth transition as exchange teachers arrive and depart, unless the sponsor notifies, and receives approval from, the Department for other exchange dates before the sponsor issues any Form DS-2019; sponsors should ensure that these dates are included in the exchange teacher's contract;
(3) Exchange teachers comply with any applicable collective bargaining agreement;
(4) Exchange teacher appointments to positions within accredited primary or secondary schools are temporary, even if the teaching positions are permanent, and do not lead to tenure; exchange teachers must be employees of either the host or home school during their exchange.
(5) Teaching positions, including duties, responsibilities, hours of employment, and compensation, are commensurate with those of similarly-situated U.S. teachers in the school district or host school where that exchange teacher is assigned to teach; an exchange teacher, unless he or she is on a program where the Department is the sponsor, must be employed by and under the direct supervision and guidance of his or her host school and, where applicable, host school district; and
(6) A pre-kindergarten level exchange teacher is assigned to teach full-time in an accredited host school (or in several schools within the same host school district, including at several academic levels, with prior permission from the Department). If an exchange teacher is placed in a private school where there is no host school district, then he or she must teach a full-time schedule of at least 32 hours in a school or schools located no more than 25 miles from the main host school; in such a situation, sponsors must ensure that reasonable and effective modes of transportation exist to such additional sites of activity. An exchange teacher may teach at the pre-kindergarten level only in a language immersion program offered as regular course of study by an accredited primary school.
(g)
(2) At the time a foreign teacher is selected for the program, and before the exchange visitor signs any contracts with the host school, sponsors and/or the host school must provide each individual exchange teacher the following information, either within the teacher's contract or in a separate document: The name, location, and brief description of the host school; the terms and conditions of compensation (with deductions from gross salary); any provisions affecting the ability of the exchange teacher to be accompanied abroad by a spouse or dependents (including any related assistance and allowances); a summary of the significant components of the program (including a statement of the teaching requirements and related professional obligations, as well as the required cross-cultural activity component as set forth in paragraph (h) of this section); specific information on the fees and costs for which the exchange teacher will be responsible while on exchange in that school district in accordance with paragraph (g)(1); anticipated housing options and cost implications; specific local transportation options between the exchange teacher's residence and the host school and transportation cost estimates; insurance costs for accident or illness coverage, repatriation of remains and medical evacuation as required by § 62.14; estimated personal expense money for initial costs the exchange teacher may incur upon arrival in the United States prior to receiving his or her first paycheck; certification or licensure procedures and costs at the host school; administrative fees; and any placement fees. Exchange teacher compensation, unless provided directly to the exchange teacher through government funding, through continued support from the exchange teacher's home school, or from both the teacher's home and host school in a shared cost arrangement, must be paid directly by the host school or host school district in which the exchange teacher is placed.
(h)
(1) Sponsors must require each exchange teacher to complete, within the United States, and during each academic year of program participation, at least one cross-cultural activity from each of the following two categories:
(i) An activity for the teacher's classroom, larger host school or host school district population, or the community at large designed to give an overview of the history, traditions, heritage, culture, economy, educational system and/or other attributes of his or her home country. Sponsors of exchange teachers placed at international schools must require their exchange teachers to conduct at least one cross-cultural activity per academic year outside the host school in nearby schools or communities where international opportunities may be more limited than those found in their host school; and
(ii) An activity that involves U.S. student dialogue with schools or students in another country, preferably
(2) Sponsors must collect annual reports from their exchange teachers detailing the cross-cultural activity component of their exchange program. The annual report does not have to be in a specific format, but must include the exchange teacher's full name and the program sponsor's name. The report section about the cross-cultural activity component must contain the following information:
(i) The date(s) of each activity;
(ii) The location of each activity;
(iii) The audience for and participants in each activity;
(iv) A general overview of each activity, including the topic; and
(v) The estimated impact of each activity.
(i)
(j)
(k)
(2) The sponsor's request for extension must include:
(i) A letter of reference on official letterhead written by the host school or host school district administrator responsible for overseeing the exchange teacher that describes the exchange teacher's performance during the previous three years of the exchange and how the host school has benefited from the exchange teacher's presence; and
(ii) a document describing how the exchange teacher over the previous three years has engaged his or her classroom, the wider host school or host school district, or community through the cross-cultural activity component, if these activities are not already detailed in the exchange teacher's annual reports.
(3) Sponsors must submit their extension request and supporting documentation for the extension to the Department no later than three months prior to the beginning of the desired extension period for the exchange teacher.
(4) Sponsor requests for extension must include proof of payment of the required non-refundable extension fee as set forth in § 62.17.
(5) The Department, at its discretion, may authorize a sponsor to extend an exchange teacher's participation for either one or two additional years beyond the initial three-year exchange period. Sponsors must comply with all Department guidance on creating an extension record for the teacher within SEVIS.
(6) Sponsors that applied for a two-year extension on behalf of a host school and its exchange teacher and received permission from the Department only for a one-year extension may apply again to extend the program of that host school's exchange teacher for one additional year by following the procedures set forth in paragraphs (k)(2)-(4) of this section. The sponsor should include with such additional extension request a copy of the prior extension request submitted to enable the initial one-year extension.
(l)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Utah on January 28, 2010, September 16, 2010, June 18, 2013, and August 29, 2014. These submittals revise the rules, general requirements and test methods for the State of Utah. The amendments also update the version of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) incorporated by reference into the rules of the State of Utah. EPA is not taking action on an April 26, 2012 submittal or a November 4, 2013 submittal because they have been superseded by the August 29, 2014 submittal. EPA is taking this action in accordance with section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This final rule is effective February 29, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0085. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Jody Ostendorf, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 303-312-7104,
The background for today's final rule is discussed in detail in our June 19, 2015 proposal (see 80 FR 35295). The comment period was open for 30 days and we received no comments.
EPA is approving the SIP revisions submitted by Utah on January 28, 2010, September 16, 2010, June 18, 2013 and August 29, 2014. We are approving the January 28, 2010 revisions to R307-405-2, with the exception of the proposed change to the incorporation by reference date, and approving all of the revisions to R307-102. We are approving the June 18, 2013 SIP revisions, with the exception of the non-substantive change to re-number R307-410-5(1)[(d)] to R307-410-5(1)(c)(i)(C). The August 29, 2014 submittal's newly amended rule supersedes and replaces all previous versions of submittals of R307-101-3,
In this rule, the EPA is including in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the Utah Division of Air Quality rules regarding rules, general requirements, and test methods discussed in the June 19, 2015 proposal (FR 35295). The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state actions, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this final action merely approves some 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• 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 in a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 29, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
This document was received for publication by the Office of Federal Register on January 21, 2016.
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(81) * * *
(82) On January 28, 2010, September 16, 2010, June 18, 2013, November 4, 2013 and August 29, 2014, the Governor submitted revisions to the Utah State Implementation Plan (SIP). We are approving the January 28, 2010 revisions to R307-405-2, with the exception of the proposed change to the incorporation by reference date, and approving all of the revisions to R307-102. We are approving the June 18, 2013
(i)
(A) Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code,
(B) Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code,
(C) Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code,
(D) Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Utah on February 25, 2013, August 5, 2013, and March 5, 2014. These submittals request SIP revisions to incorporate several changes to Utah's rules, including the permit public notice and comment process requirements, and renumbering for the “Interstate Transport” provisions. EPA is taking this action in accordance with section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This rule is effective on March 29, 2016 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 29, 2016. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification Number EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0371. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Jody Ostendorf, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7814,
1.
2.
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions and organize your comments.
• Explain why you agree or disagree.
• Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
Utah's February 25, 2013 submittal, in part, renumbers R307-110-36, Section XXIII, Interstate Transport, to R307-
The August 5, 2013 SIP revision gives authority to the Director of the Division of Air Quality to make regulatory decisions that were previously made by the Air Quality Board or the Executive Secretary of the Air Quality Board. This revision conforms with Utah Senate Bill 21, which was passed by the Utah State Legislature during the 2012 legislative session. Most of these changes are administrative in nature because they replace “executive secretary” with “director,” and, in Utah, they are the same person. The 22 rules where this change occurs are R307-105, 130, 165, 170, 201, 203, 204, 205, 250, 305, 306, 320, 326, 327, 328, 341, 401, 403, 405, 406, 410 and 414.
Three rules in the August 5, 2013 submittal, however, result in substantive changes to comply with Utah Senate Bill 21. The three rules are: R307-101, General Requirements; R307-102, General Requirements: Broadly Applicable Requirements; and R307-307, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties: Road Salting and Sanding. The changes in these rules replace occurrences of “board” with “director,” add definitions for “director” and “division,” and remove the definition of “executive secretary.” As these changes update the Utah SIP to ensure the proper authorities are consistent with the state code, EPA is approving these revisions.
The March 5, 2014 SIP revision to R307-401-7, Permit: New and Modified Sources, Public Notice, addresses a previous EPA disapproval by establishing a 30-day public comment period for the public notice and comment period for all permit actions for new or modified sources. Previously, Utah had revised its permit public notice procedures for minor sources to allow for a 10-day public comment period for an approval or disapproval order issued under R307-401-8 and requested EPA to approve that SIP revision. EPA disapproved that request because it is inconsistent with Utah's current federally approved SIP (79 FR 7072, February 6, 2014). In that disapproval, EPA also noted that federal regulations for Public Availability of Information found at 40 CFR 51.161(b)(2) require at a minimum a 30-day public comment period for the permitting of a source, including minor source permits. EPA is approving this revision.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve the SIP revisions submitted by the State of Utah on February 25, 2013, August 5, 2013, and March 5, 2014. EPA is approving a portion of the February 25, 2013 submittal which renumbers R307-110-36, Interstate Transport to R307-110-37, to allow the addition of Section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part F., Cache County. EPA is approving the August 5, 2013 SIP revisions, which give the Director of the Division of Air Quality the authority to make regulatory decisions that were previously made by either the Air Quality Board or the Executive Secretary of the Air Quality Board. Finally, EPA is approving the March 5, 2014 submittal which establishes a 30-day public comment period for the public notice and comment period for permitting actions for new or modified sources.
EPA is approving the proposed SIP revisions as a direct final action without prior proposal because the Agency views the revisions as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of today's
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference for the revisions to the Utah Division of Air Quality rules including, the permit public notice and comment process, and renumbering discussed in section II,
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state actions, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this direct final action merely approves some 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• 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 in a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 29, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
This document was received for publication by the Office of Federal Register on January 14, 2016.
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(81) On February 25, 2013, August 5, 2013, and March 5, 2014, the Governor submitted revisions to the Utah State Implementation Plan (SIP) rules. The February 25, 2013 submittal renumbers Interstate Transport to R307-110-37. The August 5, 2013 SIP revisions give the Director of the Division of Air Quality the authority to make regulatory decisions that were previously made by either the Air Quality Board or the Executive Secretary of the Air Quality Board. The March 5, 2014 submittal establishes a 30-day public comment period for the public notice and comment period for all actions for new or modified sources. EPA is approving these revisions.
(i)
(A) Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code,
(B) Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code,
(C) Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code,
(D) Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code,
(E) Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
During a review of Arkansas' regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified two State-initiated changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). We have determined that these changes are minor and satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for Final authorization and are authorizing the State-initiated changes through this direct Final action.
The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize States to operate their hazardous waste management programs in lieu of the Federal program. The EPA uses the regulations entitled “Approved State Hazardous Waste Management
This regulation is effective March 29, 2016, unless the EPA receives adverse written comment on this regulation by the close of business February 29, 2016. If the EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final rule in the
Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
You can view and copy the documents that form the basis for this codification and associated publicly available materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday at the following location: EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, 75202-2733, phone number (214) 665-8533 or (214) 665-8178. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least two weeks in advance.
Alima Patterson, Region 6 Regional Authorization Coordinator, or Julia Banks, Codification Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, Phone numbers: (214) 665-8533 or (214) 665-8178, and Email address
States which have received Final authorization from the EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal hazardous waste program. As the Federal program changes, the States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State hazardous waste programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273 and 279. States can also initiate their own changes to their hazardous waste program and these changes must then be authorized.
We conclude that Arkansas' revisions to its authorized program meet all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. We found that the State-initiated changes make Arkansas' rules more clear or conform more closely to the Federal equivalents and are so minor in nature that a formal application is unnecessary. Therefore, we grant Arkansas final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the table at Section G below. Arkansas has responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out all authorized aspects of the RCRA program, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Arkansas, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.
The effect of this decision is that a facility in Arkansas subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Arkansas has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but the EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:
• Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports;
• Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits; and
• Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions.
This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the statutes and regulations for which Arkansas is being authorized by this direct final action are already effective and are not changed by this action.
The EPA did not publish a proposal before this rule because we view this as
If the EPA receives comments that oppose the authorization of the State-initiated changes in this codification document, we will withdraw this rule by publishing a timely document in the
In addition to the authorizing of the rules described above in this document. The purpose of this
Arkansas initially received final authorization on January 25, 1985 (50 FR 1513), to implement its Base Hazardous Waste Management program. Arkansas received authorization for revisions to its program on January 11, 1985 (50 FR 1513), effective January 25, 1985; March 27, 1990 (55 FR 11192), effective May 29, 1990; September 18, 1991 (56 FR 47153), effective November 18, 1991; October 5, 1992 (57 FR 45721), effective December 4, 1992; October 7, 1994 (59 FR 51115), effective December 21, 1994, April 24, 2002 (67 FR 20038), effective June 24, 2002, as amended June 28, 2010 (75 FR 36538); August 15, 2007 (72 FR 45663), effective October 15, 2007, as amended June 28, 2010 (75 FR 36538); June 28, 2010 (75 FR 36538), effective August 27, 2010; August 10, 2012 (77 FR 47779), effective October 9, 2012; October 2, 2014 (79 FR 59438), effective December 1, 2014; and October 31, 2014, 79 FR 64678, effective December 30, 2014.
The State has made amendments to Arkansas Regulation No. 23 Sections 264.1030(c) and 265.142(a) introductory paragraph, analogous to 40 CFR 264.1030(c) and 265.142(a) introductory paragraph, respectively. These amendments clarify the State's regulations and make the State's regulations more internally consistent. The State's laws and regulations, as amended by these provisions, provide authority which remains equivalent to and no less stringent than the Federal laws and regulations. These State-initiated changes satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 271.21(a). We are granting Arkansas final authorization to carry out the following provisions of the State's program in lieu of the Federal program. These provisions are analogous to the indicated RCRA regulations found at 40 CFR as of July 1, 2011. The Arkansas provisions are from the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission Regulation No. 23, Hazardous Waste Management, adopted on June 22, 2012, effective August 12, 2012.
This authorization does not affect the status of State permits and those permits issued by the EPA because no new substantive requirements are a part of these revisions.
Arkansas is not authorized to carry out its Hazardous Waste Program in Indian Country within the State. This authority remains with EPA. Therefore, this action has no effect in Indian Country.
Codification is the process of placing a State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste management program into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Section 3006(b) of RCRA, as amended, allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize State hazardous waste management programs to operate in lieu of the Federal hazardous waste management regulatory program. The EPA codifies its authorization of State programs in 40 CFR part 272 and incorporates by reference State statutes and regulations that the EPA will enforce under sections 3007 and 3008 of RCRA and any other applicable statutory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of State authorized programs in the CFR should substantially enhance the public's ability to discern the current status of the authorized State program and State requirements that can be Federally enforced. This effort provides clear notice to the public of the scope of the authorized program in each State.
The EPA incorporated by reference Arkansas' then authorized hazardous waste program effective December 13, 1993 (58 FR 52674), August 21, 1995 (60 FR 32112), August 27, 2010 (75 FR 36538) and December 1, 2014 (79 FR 59438). Note: At 79 FR 59443, the State agency acronym should be referenced as “(ADEQ)” with regard to the State's Memorandum of Agreement with the EPA.
In this document, the EPA is revising subpart E of 40 CFR part 272 to include the authorization revision action effective December 30, 2014 (79 FR 64678).
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Arkansas rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 272 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available electronically through
The purpose of this
The EPA is incorporating by reference the Arkansas authorized hazardous waste management program in subpart E of 40 CFR part 272. Section 272.201 incorporates by reference Arkansas' authorized hazardous waste statutes and regulations. Section 272.201 also references the statutory provisions (including procedural and enforcement provisions) which provide the legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous waste management program, the Memorandum of Agreement, the Attorney General's Statements and the Program Description, which are approved as part of the hazardous waste management program under Subtitle C of RCRA.
The EPA retains its authority under statutory provisions, including but not limited to, RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013 and 7003, and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions to undertake inspections and enforcement actions and to issue orders in authorized States. With respect to these actions, the EPA will rely on Federal sanctions, Federal inspection authorities, and Federal procedures rather than any authorized State analogues to these provisions. Therefore, the EPA is not incorporating by reference such particular, approved Arkansas procedural and enforcement authorities. Section 272.201(c)(2) of 40 CFR lists the statutory provisions which provide the legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous waste management program, as well as those procedural and enforcement authorities that are part of the State's approved program, but these are not incorporated by reference.
The public needs to be aware that some provisions of Arkansas' hazardous waste management program are not part of the Federally authorized State program. These non-authorized provisions include:
(1) provisions that are not part of the RCRA subtitle C program because they are “broader in scope” than RCRA subtitle C (see 40 CFR 271.1(i));
(2) Federal rules adopted by Arkansas but for which the State is not authorized;
(3) Unauthorized amendments to authorized State provisions;
(4) New unauthorized State requirements;
(5) A Federal program which has since been withdrawn by the U.S. EPA; and
(6) Federal rules for which Arkansas is authorized but which were vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. No. 98-1379 and 08-1144, June 27, 2014).
State provisions that are “broader in scope” than the Federal program are not part of the RCRA authorized program and the EPA will not enforce them. Therefore, they are not incorporated by reference in 40 CFR part 272. For reference and clarity, 40 CFR 272.201(c)(3) lists the Arkansas regulatory provisions which are “broader in scope” than the Federal program and which are not part of the authorized program being incorporated by reference. “Broader in scope” provisions cannot be enforced by the EPA; the State, however, may enforce such provisions under State law.
Additionally, Arkansas' hazardous waste regulations include amendments which have not been authorized by the EPA. Since the EPA cannot enforce a State's requirements which have not been reviewed and authorized in accordance with RCRA section 3006 and 40 CFR part 271, it is important to be precise in delineating the scope of a State's authorized hazardous waste program. Regulatory provisions that have not been authorized by the EPA include amendments to previously authorized State regulations as well as certain Federal rules and new State requirements.
Arkansas has adopted but is not authorized for the following Federal rules published in the
Arkansas adopted and was authorized for the following Federal Performance Track program, which has since been terminated by the U.S. EPA: published in the
Arkansas has adopted and was authorized for the following Federal rules which have since been vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. No. 98-1379 and 08-1144, respectively; June 27, 2014): (1) The Comparable Fuels Exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(16) and 261.38 published in the
State regulations that are not incorporated by reference in this rule at 40 CFR 272.201(c)(1), or that are not listed in 40 CFR 272.201(c)(2) (“legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous waste management program”), 40 CFR 272.201(c)(3) (“broader in scope”) or 40 CFR 272.201(c)(4) (“unauthorized state amendments”), are considered new unauthorized State requirements. These requirements are not Federally enforceable.
With respect to any requirement pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) for which the State has not yet been authorized, the EPA will continue to enforce the Federal HSWA standards until the State is authorized for these provisions.
The EPA is not amending 40 CFR part 272 to include HSWA requirements and prohibitions that are implemented by the EPA. Section 3006(g) of RCRA provides that any HSWA requirement or prohibition (including implementing regulations) takes effect in authorized and not authorized States at the same time. A HSWA requirement or prohibition supersedes any less stringent or inconsistent State provision which may have been previously authorized by the EPA (50 FR 28702, July 15, 1985). The EPA has the authority to implement HSWA requirements in all States, including authorized States, until the States become authorized for such requirement or prohibition. Authorized States are required to revise their programs to adopt the HSWA requirements and prohibitions, and then to seek
Instead of amending 40 CFR part 272 every time a new HSWA provision takes effect under the authority of RCRA section 3006(g), the EPA will wait until the State receives authorization for its analog to the new HSWA provision before amending the State's 40 CFR part 272 incorporation by reference. Until then, persons wanting to know whether a HSWA requirement or prohibition is in effect should refer to 40 CFR 271.1(j), as amended, which lists each such provision.
Some existing State requirements may be similar to the HSWA requirement implemented by the EPA. However, until the EPA authorizes those State requirements, the EPA can only enforce the HSWA requirements and not the State analogs. The EPA will not codify those State requirements until the State receives authorization for those requirements.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This rule incorporates by reference Arkansas' authorized hazardous waste management regulations and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This action 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely incorporates by reference existing authorized State hazardous waste management program requirements without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also does not have Tribal implications within the meaning of Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000).
This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
The requirements being codified are the result of Arkansas' voluntary participation in the EPA's State program authorization process under RCRA Subtitle C. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Water pollution control, Water supply.
This rule is issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the authority at 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b), EPA is granting final authorization under part 271 to the State of Arkansas for revisions to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and is amending 40 CFR part 272 as follows.
Sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).
(a) Pursuant to section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), the EPA granted Arkansas final authorization for the following elements as submitted to EPA in Arkansas' base program application for final authorization which was approved by EPA effective on January 25, 1985. Subsequent program revision applications were approved effective on May 29, 1990; November 18, 1991; December 4, 1992; December 21, 1994; June 24, 2002; October 15, 2007; August 27, 2010; October 9, 2012, December 1, 2014, December 30, 2014 and March 29, 2016.
(b) The State of Arkansas has primary responsibility for enforcing its hazardous waste management program. However, EPA retains the authority to
(c)
(i) The binder entitled “EPA-Approved Arkansas Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Hazardous Waste Management Program”, dated December 2014.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) The following provisions provide the legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous waste management program, but they are not being incorporated by reference and do not replace Federal authorities:
(i) Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated (A.C.A.), 2011 Replacement, Title 4, Business and Commercial Law, Chapter 75: Section 4-75-601(4) “Trade Secret”.
(ii) Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated (A.C.A.), 2011 Replacement, Title 8, Environmental Law, Chapter 1: Section 8-1-107.
(iii) Arkansas Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1979, as amended, Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated (A.C.A.), 2011 Replacement, Title 8, Environmental Law, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2: Sections 8-7-204 (except 8-7-204(e)(3)(B)), 8-7-205 through 8-7-214, 8-7-217, 8-7-218, 8-7-220, 8-7-222, 8-7-224, 8-7-225(b) through 8-7-225(d), and 8-7-227.
(iv) Arkansas Resource Reclamation Act of 1979, as amended, Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated (A.C.A.), 2011 Replacement, Title 8, Environmental Law, Chapter 7, Subchapter 3: Sections 8-7-302(3), 8-7-303 and 8-7-308.
(v) Remedial Action Trust Fund Act of 1985, as amended, Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated (A.C.A.), 2011 Replacement, Title 8, Environmental Law, Chapter 7, Subchapter 5: Sections 8-7-503(6) and (7), 8-7-505(3), 8-7-507, 8-7-508, 8-7-511 and 8-7-512.
(vi) Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of 1967, as amended, Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated (A.C.A.), 2011 Replacement, Title 25, State Government, Chapter 19: Sections 25-19-103(1), 25-19-105, 25-19-107.
(vii) Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology (APC&E) Commission Regulation No. 23, Hazardous Waste Management, as amended June 22, 2012, effective August 12, 2012, Chapter One; Chapter Two, Sections 1, 2, 3(a), 3(b)(3), 4, 260.2, 260.20(c) through (f), 261 Appendix IX, 270.7(h) and (j), 270.10(e)(8), 270.34, Chapter Three, Sections 19, 21 and 22; Chapter Five, Section 28.
(viii) Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology (APC&E) Commission, Regulation No. 7, Civil Penalties, July 24, 1992.
(ix) Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology (APC&E) Commission, Regulation No. 8, Administrative Procedures, February 12, 2009.
(3) The following statutory and regulatory provisions are broader in scope than the Federal program, are not part of the authorized program, and are not incorporated by reference:
(i) Arkansas Hazardous Waste Management Act, as amended, Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated (A.C.A.), 2011 Replacement, Title 8, Environmental Law, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2: Section 8-7-226.
(ii) Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology (APC&E) Commission Regulation No. 23, Hazardous Waste Management, as amended June 22, 2012, effective August 12, 2012, Chapter Two, Sections 6, 262.13(c), 262.24(d), 263.10(e), 263.13, 264.71(e), and 265.71(e).
(4)
(ii) The Federal rules listed in the table in this paragraph (c)(4)(ii) are not delegable to States. Arkansas has adopted these provisions and left the authority to the EPA for implementation and enforcement.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
The statutory provisions include:
Arkansas Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1979, as amended, Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated (A.C.A.), 2011 Replacement, Title 8, Environmental Law, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2: Sections 8-7-202, 8-7-203, 8-7-215, 8-7-216, 8-7-219, 8-7-221, 8-7-223 and 8-7-225(a).
Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated (A.C.A.), 2011 Replacement, Title 8, Environmental Law, Chapter 10, Subchapter 3: Section 8-10-301(d).
Copies of the Arkansas statutes that are incorporated by reference are available from Michie Publishing, 1275 Broadway Albany, New York 12204, Phone: (800) 223-1940.
The regulatory provisions include:
Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology (APC&E) Commission Regulation No. 23, Hazardous Waste Management, as amended June 22, 2012, effective August 12, 2012. Please note that the 2012 APC&E Commission Regulation No. 23, is the most recent version of the Arkansas authorized hazardous waste regulations. For a few provisions, the authorized versions are found in the APC&E Commission Regulation 23, effective January 21, 1996, March 23, 2006 or June 13, 2010. Arkansas made subsequent changes to these provisions but these changes have not been authorized by EPA. The provisions from the January 21, 1996, March 23, 2006 or June 13, 2010 regulations are noted below.
Chapter Two, Sections 3(b) introductory paragraph; 3(b)(2); 3(b)(4); Section 260—Hazardous Waste Management System—General—260.1; 260.3; 260.10 (except the definitions of “consolidation”, “gasification”, “Performance Track member facility”, the phrase “a written permit issued by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department authorizing a person to transport hazardous waste (Hazardous Waste Transportation Permit), or” in the definition for “permit”) 260.11 (except reserved provisions); 260.20 (except 260.20(c) through (f)); 260.21; 260.23; 260.30; 260.31(a);
Section 261—Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste—261.1; 261.2; 261.3 (except 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and reserved provisions); 261.3(a)(2)(iv) (March 23, 2006); 261.4(a) (except 261.4(a)(9)(iii), 261.4(a)(12)(i), and 261.4(a)(16)); 261.4(a)(9)(iii) (March 23, 2006); 261.4(b) through (e); 261.4(f) (except 261.4(f)(9)); 261.4(f)(9) (March 23, 2006); 261.4(g); 261.5; 261.6 (except (a)(5)); 261.7; 261.8; 261.9; 261.10; 261.11; 261.20 through 261.24; 261.30 through 261.33; 261.35; 261.39, 261.40, 261.41, Appendices I, VII and VIII.
Section 262—Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste—262.10 (except 262.10(d)); 262.11; 262.12; 262.13 (except 262.13(c)); 262.20 (except reserved provision); 262.21; 262.22; 262.23; 262.24 (except 262.24(d)); 262.27; 262.30; 262.31 through 262.33; 262.34 (except 262.34(j)-(l)); 262.35 (except the phrase “and the requirements of § 262.13(d) and § 263.10(d)” at 262.35(a)(2)); 262.40; 262.41 (except references to PCBs) (January 21, 1996); 262.42; 262.43; 262.50 through 262.58; 262.60 (except 262.60(e)); 262.70; 262.200 through 262.216; and Appendix I.
Section 263—Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste—263.10 (except 263.10(d) and (e)), 263.11, 263.12, 263.20 (except 263.20(g)(4) and reserved provision), 263.21, 263.22, 263.30 and 263.31.
Section 264—Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities—264.1 (except reserved provisions); 264.3; 264.4; 264.10; 264.11; 264.12 (except 264.12(a)(2)); 264.13 through 264.19; 264.20(a) through (c); 264.30 through 264.35; 264.37; 264.50 through 264.56; 264.70; 264.71 (except 264.71(a)(3), (d) and (e)); 264.72; 264.73 (except 264.73(b)(18) and (b)(19)); 264.74; 264.75 (except first occurrence of 264.75(a) through (d) and 264.75(g)); 264.75(g) (January 21, 1996); 264.75(h) (January 21, 1996); 264.76(a); 264.77; 264.90 through 264.101; 264.110 through 264.120; 264.140; 264.141 (except the definition of “captive insurance” at 264.141(f)); 264.142; 264.143 (except the last sentence of 264.143(e)(1)); 264.144; 264.145 (except the last sentence of 264.145(e)(1)); 264.146; 264.147 (except the last sentences of 264.147(a)(1)(i) and 264.147(b)(1)(ii) and reserved provision); 264.148; 264.151; 264.170 through 264.174; 264.175 (except reserved provision); 264.176 through 264.179; 264.190 through 264.200; 264.220 through 264.223; 264.226 through 264.232; 264.250 through 264.254; 264.256 through 264.259; 264.270 through 264.273; 264.276; 264.278 through 264.283; 264.300 through 264.304; 264.309; 264.310; 264.312(a); 264.313; 264.314 (except 264.314(a)(2) and (a)(3)) (June 13, 2010); 264.315; 264.316 (except 264.316(b)); 264.316(b) (June 13, 2010); 264.317; 264.340 through 264.345; 264.347 (March 23, 2006); 264.351; 264.550, 264.551; 264.552 (except 264.552 (a)(3)(ii)-(iv)); 264.552 (a)(3)(ii)-(iv) (June 13, 2010); 264.553 through 264.555 (except reserved provision); 264.570 through 264.575; 264.600 through 264.603; 264.1030 through 264.1036; 264.1050 through 264.1061(except reserved provision); 264.1062 (June 13, 2010); 264.1063 through 264.1065; 264.1080 through 264.1090; 264.1100 through 264.1102; 264.1200; 264.1201; 264.1202; Appendix I; and Appendices IV, V and IX.
Section 265—Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities—265.1 (except 265.1(c)(4) and reserved provisions); 265.4, 265.10, 265.11, 265.12 (except 265.12(a)(2)), 265.13, 265.14, 265.15 (except the phrase “, except for Performance Track member facilities . . . as described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section” at 265.15(b)(4) and 265.15(b)(5)); 265.16 (except 265.16(a)(4)); 265.17 through 265.19; 265.30 through 265.35; 265.37; 265.50; 265.51; 265.52 (except the last three sentences of 265.52(b)); 265.53 through 265.55; 265.56 (except 265.56(i)); 265.56(i) and (j) (March 23, 2006); 265.70, 265.71 (except 265.71(a)(3), (d) and (e)), 265.72; 265.73 (March 23, 2006); 265.74; 265.75 (except 265.75(g)); 265.75(g) and (h) (January 21, 1996); 265.76(a); 265.77; 265.90 (except the last sentence of 265.90(d)(1), and in 265.90(d)(3) the phrase “and place it in the facility's . . . closure of the facility”); 265.91; 265.92; 265.93 (except the last sentence of 265.93(d)(2) and the last sentence of 265.93(d)(5)); 265.94; 265.110 through 265.112; 265.113 (except 265.113(e)(5)); 265.113(e)(5) (March 23, 2006); 265.114 through 265.121; 265.140, 265.141 (except the definition of “captive insurance” at 265.141(f)); 265.142; 265.143 (except the last sentence of 265.143(d)(1) and “qualified” before “Arkansas-registered Professional Engineer” in 265.143(h)); 265.144; 265.145; 265.146; 265.147 (except the last sentences of 265.147(a)(1) and 265.147(b)(1), “qualified” before “Arkansas-registered Professional Engineer” in 265.147(e) and reserved provision); 265.148; 265.170 through 265.173; 265.174 (March 23, 2006); 265.176; 265.177, 265.178, 265.190; 265.191; 265.192; 265.193(a) (March 23, 2006); 265.193(b) through 265.193(i); 265.194; 265.195 (March 23, 2006); 265.196 through 265.200; 265.201 (March 23, 2006); 265.202; 265.220; 265.221 (except 265.221(a)); 265.221(a) (March 23, 2006); 265.222; 265.223 and 265.224 (March 23, 2006); 265.225; 265.226; 265.228 through 265.231; 265.250 through 265.258; 265.259(a) (March 23, 2006); 265.259(b) and (c); 265.260; 265.270; 265.272; 265.273; 265.276; 265.278; 265.279; 265.280 (except the word “qualified” before “Arkansas-registered professional engineer” in 265.180(e)); 265.281; 265.282; 265.300; 265.301(a) (March 23, 2006); 265.301(b) through 265.301(i); 265.302; 265.303(a) (March 23, 2006); 265.303(b) and (c); 265.304; 265.309; 265.310; 265.312(a); 265.313; 265.314(a) (except 265.314(a)(2) and (a)(3)) (March 23, 2006); 265.314(b) (except the last sentence) (March 23, 2006); 265.314(c) through (g) (March 23, 2006); 265.315; 265.316; 265.340; 265.341; 265.345; 265.347; 265.351; 265.352; 265.370; 265.373; 265.375; 265.377; 265.381; 265.382; 265.383; 265.400 through 265.406; 265.430; 265.440 through 265.445; 265.1030 through 265.1035 (except reserved provision); 265.1050 (except reserved provision); 265.1051 through 265.1060; 265.1061 (March 23, 2006); 265.1062 (March 23, 2006); 265.1063; 265.1064; 265.1080 through 265.1090; 265.1100 (March 23, 2006); 265.1101 (except (c)(2) and the phrase “, except for Performance Track . . . director” and the last sentence in 265.1101(c)(4)); 265.1101 (c)(2) (March 23, 2006); 265.1102; 265.1200; 265.1201; 265.1202; Appendix I; and Appendices III through VI.
Section 266—Standards for the Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities—266.20 through 266.23; 266.70 (except 266.70(b)(3)); 266.80 (except items 6 and 7 to the 266.80(a) table); 266.100; 266.101; 266.102 (except 266.102(e)(10)); 266.102(e)(10) (March 23, 2006); 266.103 (except 266.103(d) and (k)); 266.103(d) and (k) (March 23, 2006); 266.104 through 266.112; 266.200 through 266.206; 266.210; 266.220; 266.225; 266.230; 266.235; 266.240; 266.245; 266.250; 266.255; 266.260; 266.305; 266.310; 266.315; 266.320; 266.325; 266.330; 266.335; 266.340; 266.345; 266.350; 266.355; 266.360; and Appendices I through XIII.
Section 267—Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Facilities Operating Under a Standardized Permit—267.1 through 267.3; 267.10 through 267.18; 267.30 through 267.36; 267.50 through 267.58; 267.70 through 267.76; 267.90; 267.101; 267.110 through 267.113; 267.115 through 267.117; 267.140 through 267.143; 267.147 through 267.151; 267.170 through 267.177; 267.190 through 267.204; and 267.1100 through 267.1108.
Section 268—Land Disposal Restrictions—268.1; 268.2 through 268.4, 268.7(a) (except 268.7(a)(1) and reserved provisions); 268.7(a)(1) (March 23, 2006); 268.7(b) (except 268.7(b)(6)); 268.7(b)(6) (March 23, 2006); 268.7(c) through (e); 268.9(a) (except second sentence); 268.9(b) and (c); 268.9(d) introductory paragraph (March 23, 2006); 268.9(d) (1) and (2) (except reserved provision); 268.13; 268.14; 268.20, 268.30 through 268.39; 268.40 (except 268.40(e)(1)-(4) and 268.40(i)); 268.41; 268.42 (except 268.42(b)); 268.43; 268.45; 268.46; 268.48; 268.49; 268.50; and Appendices III, IV, VI through IX and XI.
Section 270—Administered Permit Programs: The Hazardous Waste Permit Program—270.1; 270.2; 270.3 (except reserved provision); 270.4; 270.5; 270.6; 270.7 (except 270.7(h) and (j)); 270.10 (except 270.10(e)(8) and (k)); 270.11 through 270.33; 270.40; 270.41; 270.42 (except 270.42(l)); 270.42 Appendix I (except entry at item O); 270.43; 270.50; 270.51; 270.60 (except reserved provision); 270.61 through 270.68; 270.70 through 270.73; 270.79; 270.80; 270.85; 270.90; 270.95; 270.100; 270.105; 270.110; 270.115; 270.120; 270.125; 270.130; 270.135; 270.140; 270.145; 270.150; 270.155; 270.160; 270.165; 270.170; 270.175; 270.180; 270.185; 270.190; 270.195; 270.200; 270.205; 270.210; 270.215; 270.220; 270.225; 270.230; 270.235; 270.250; 270.255; 270.260; 270.265; 270.270; 270.275; 270.280; 270.290; 270.300; 279.305; 270.310; 270.315; and 270.320.
Section 273—Standards for Universal Waste Management—273.1 through 273.4;
Section 279—Standards for the Management of Used Oil—279.1; 279.10; 279.11; 279.12; 279.20 through 279.24; 279.30; 279.31; 279.32; 279.40 through 279.47; 279.50 through 279.67; 279.70 through 279.75; 279.80; 279.81; and 279.82(a).
Copies of the Arkansas regulations that are incorporated by reference are available from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Web site at
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission” or “FCC”) defines when and in what areas 600 MHz Band wireless licensees will be deemed to “commence operations” for the purpose of establishing when secondary and unlicensed users must cease operations and vacate the 600 MHz Band.
The rules will become effective February 29, 2016, except for §§ 15.713(b)(2)(iv), 15.713(j)(10) introductory text, 15.715(n), and 73.3700(g)(4)(i), (g)(4)(ii)(B), (g)(4)(iii), and (g)(4)(v), which contain new or modified information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Commission will publish a document in the
Paul Malmud of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202-418-0006 or
This is a summary of
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) was incorporated in the Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions 77 FR 69934, Nov. 21, 2012 (“
The Commission will send a copy of this
This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13.
The Commission will send a copy of the
1. In the
2. Based on our review of the record and as explained below in greater detail, the Commission determines that a 600 MHz Band wireless licensee “commences operations” when it conducts site commissioning tests. In this context, the term is defined to include site activation and commissioning tests using permanent base station equipment, antennas and/or tower locations as part of its site and system optimization in the area of its planned commercial service infrastructure deployment. It is at this juncture that a wireless licensee moves from construction to testing its system, and needs unfettered access to its licensed spectrum to optimize its network in advance of launching commercial service to customers. In addition, the
3. Many months of preparatory work go into planning and deploying a wireless broadband system. As noted by wireless industry commenters, they must engage in extensive construction and testing of equipment and service before licensees can launch commercial service in a particular market. When a wireless licensee establishes permanent base stations, with permanent antennas, and/or tower locations, the licensee will need access to its licensed spectrum to perform site activation and commissioning tests to ensure that the base station performs as expected. The licensee must analyze multiple factors, including but not limited to signal generation, power measurement, frequency error, unwanted emissions, occupied bandwidth, adjacent-channel leakage, and spurious emissions as part of this testing. In sum, the start of the site commissioning testing phase requires the use of licensed frequencies for committed sites in anticipation of bringing up a wireless broadband system in an area. Therefore, a 600 MHz Band wireless licensee “commences operations” when it begins its site commissioning tests.
4. As many commenters point out, choosing site commissioning testing as the benchmark for defining commencement of operations provides a relevant and sustainable sign that 600 MHz Band wireless licensees are committed to deploying service in a particular area and will begin providing commercial service in the immediate term. Furthermore, it will minimize, to the extent possible, the time between cessation of secondary and unlicensed use and initiation of commercial wireless service. This takes the interests of secondary and unlicensed users into account but still provides uncompromised access to the 600 MHz Band by wireless licensees when they need it. Accordingly, the proposed definition of “commencing operations” appropriately balances the competing interests that must be considered in transitioning the 600 MHz Band to wireless use.
5. The Commission declines to adopt AT&T, CTIA, and the Competitive Carriers Association's (“CCA”) proposal to define commencement of operations in the 600 MHz Band to include the early stages of pre-deployment. These commenters propose that secondary and unlicensed users should clear the 600 MHz Band as early as the initial transmission of a radio frequency (“RF”) signal by a wireless licensee under its 600 MHz Band license. In support, CTIA and CCA argue that early pre-deployment testing of equipment and services would be best run in actual operating conditions (
6. Permitting wireless carriers to displace incumbent secondary and unlicensed users at the first RF transmission or in the earliest stages of pre-deployment would be inconsistent with the balancing of interests that was established as part of the transition plan for the 600 MHz Band. The Commission agrees that 600 MHz Band wireless licensees require actual fully modulated waveforms at full operational power, on their specific licensed frequencies, when they are ready to test specific functionality (such as handover and out of band emissions), adjust site coverage, and minimize interference between sites. This requirement is the basis for our definition of commence operations. Other tests that occur earlier in the deployment process, however, such as drive testing for site evaluation and propagation model calibration, typically do not require use of the licensee's specific licensed frequencies to produce accurate results. For example, if an LPTV station is located within an anticipated coverage area, a 600 MHz Band wireless licensee can perform these early pre-deployment tests on adjacent or nearby channels, or possibly using narrowband signals on the channel edge, without receiving interference.
7. The Commission also declines to adopt the proposals of the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (“WISPA”) and Sennheiser Electric Corp. (“Sennheiser”) that commencement of operations should be tied to the actual start of commercial service to the public. According to WISPA, service to the public undergirds any justification for exclusivity and freedom from interference. Defining commencement of operations to mean actual launch of commercial service by the 600 MHz Band wireless licensee, however, would ignore the scope and nature of testing necessary to bring a complex network of sites into synchronized operation to provide seamless communications that meet users' commercial service quality expectations. As discussed above, once a 600 MHz Band wireless licensee has begun construction of permanent base stations in an area, the licensee needs access to its particular licensed frequencies to accurately assess the performance of these base stations and associated user equipment in an environment free from interference. As CCA describes, providers must conduct multiple facility tests before starting
8. AT&T and CTIA also argue that the Spectrum Act precludes allowing secondary and unlicensed users to operate in the licensed 600 MHz Band after the spectrum is reallocated for wireless services. The Commission is not persuaded by these arguments. As explained in the
9. The Commission adopts the proposal that a licensee's notification of commencement of operations covers the area served by its planned commercial service infrastructure deployment. The licensee's commercial service deployment area is determined by the specific locations of the base stations it will construct to provide contiguous coverage to its customers in the area; the outermost base station sites form the boundary of the area. Each site included within this boundary must be capable of handing over mobile traffic to at least one other site within the boundary on the same licensed frequency. Many commenters support defining the area covered by a licensee's notification of commencement in a way that allows secondary and unlicensed users access to spectrum that might otherwise lay fallow until wireless operations begin in all geographic areas under a license rather than just in certain areas.
10. We decline to adopt the proposals of AT&T, CCA, and CTIA that would require secondary and unlicensed users to vacate the entire Partial Economic Area (“PEA”) when a 600 MHz Band wireless licensee commences operations in just one particular portion of a PEA. These commenters argue that granting licensees access to the entire PEA will free them of the burden of continually having to update data on the scope of their deployment merely to obtain interference protection over a changing deployment area. The Commission is not persuaded that this decision herein will impose an undue burden on 600 MHz Band wireless licensees. While a 600 MHz Band wireless licensee may need to provide notice for new areas, the rules will permit these licensees to plan for, and roll out service to, large or small areas of deployment, as they see fit, based on their business plans and needs, rather than predefined geographic boundaries. Although allowing 600 MHz Band wireless licensees exclusive access to their entire licensed area upon their first RF transmission might be less burdensome, it could result in the spectrum lying fallow for a longer period of time than is necessary. Instead, this decision maintains the balance struck in the
11. Further, while a license issued for the 600 MHz Band does include the right to exclusive use, it does not include the immediate right to exclude for the entire license area. 600 MHz Band wireless licensees will have all of the rights and obligations conferred by the Commission's
12. Although the wireless industry generally opposed the Commission's proposed definition of commencement of operations, it has, through CTIA, suggested “a compromise” that would modify this definition to include “market testing” in addition to site commissioning testing. CTIA describes market testing as a phase prior to site commissioning in which the wireless licensee deploys prototype equipment in a limited number of markets to determine if the equipment actually performs as expected in the real-world (as compared to laboratory performance) and if the propagation models and software that have been developed accurately model the capabilities of the new radiofrequency equipment. CTIA states that this testing is conducted in a limited number of markets—typically . . . only a fraction of the areas where full commercial launch will occur—and typically within only a portion of the market area—a cluster or clusters of base station sites. More specifically, CTIA states that such testing usually involves two to six test areas, comprising from as little as 10 sites to 200-300 sites, covering generally no more than 1,000 square miles. CTIA asserts that if 600 MHz Band wireless licensees are not able to conduct market testing of new equipment, software, and possibly technology on their licensed frequencies without the presence of secondary and unlicensed users, deployment of mobile broadband services in the band will be delayed, which it argues would be contrary to Congress's paramount objective in granting the FCC authority to hold the incentive auction.
13. Subsequently, AT&T responded to Commission staff inquiries about how it conducts what it terms first field application (“FFA”) testing. According to AT&T, FFA testing for a new spectrum band consists of three main areas of evaluation—network hardware, software, and devices [and] . . . incorporates as many different combinations of morphologies (rural, suburban and urban) and network configurations as practicable, to emulate the actual environments found in the network. AT&T further explains that base station hardware testing covers all possible combinations of baseband and radiohead configurations at a cluster of 20-30 sites to ensure the hardware is working as designed and is compatible with existing network facilities. Testing
14. As an initial matter, the terminology that the wireless industry uses to refer to this type of testing appears to vary from operator to operator. For convenience, AT&T's term—first field application—which conveys more precisely than other terms the nature and scope of this testing will be used. The FFA testing that CTIA and AT&T describe as being essential to timely deployment of 600 MHz Band wireless service would not fit squarely within the definition of “commencing operations” in this
15. Therefore, the Commission is providing a limited exception to the rule defining commencement of operations, to permit 600 MHz Band licensees to conduct FFA testing on their licensed frequencies in advance of site activation and commissioning testing without the presence of secondary and unlicensed users. Based on information presented by AT&T and on FCC staff network engineering expertise, the Commission expects that FFA testing pursuant to this exception would be done in a small number of areas, with the parameters presented as typical by CTIA constituting the upper bound on what the Commission would consider reasonable. In most cases, FFA testing should require fewer test areas, fewer sites,
16. We reject as untimely requests for reconsideration of several commenters to modify the transition procedures established in the
17. Finally, the Commission is redesignating Section 27.19 of the Commission's rules as Section 27.1321 and adding two undesignated center headings to Subpart N (600 MHz Band) of Part 27. Section 27.19 applies only to 600 MHz Band licensees and therefore should be included in Subpart N, which is the general subtitle for the 600 MHz Band. The Commission is also adding the additional undesignated center headings to provide greater clarity to Subpart N. None of these rule changes require prior notice and opportunity for comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA provides exceptions to the notice-and-comment requirement when, among other things, the agency finds for good cause that the notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. These rule changes are non-substantive and
18. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) was incorporated in Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions 77 FR 69934, Nov. 21, 2012 (“
19. In the
20. The
21. No commenters directly responded to the IRFA in the Incentive Auction NPRM. Nonetheless, the FRFA in the
22. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the adopted rules. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” small organization,” and “small government 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 SBA.
23. As noted, the Commission incorporated a FRFA into the
24. In Section D of the FRFA, incorporated into the Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission described in detail the projected recordkeeping, reporting, and other compliance requirements for small entities arising from the rules adopted in the
25. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in developing its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities. The Commission has minimized the significant economic impact on small entities because no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements result from the
26. None.
Communications equipment, Radio, Communications common carriers
Federal Communications Commission.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 15, 27, 73, and 74 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a, and 549.
(c) * * *
(2) Frequencies in the 600 MHz service band on which a 600 MHz service licensee has not commenced operations, as defined in § 27.4 of this chapter. Operation on these frequencies must cease no later than the end of the post-auction transition period, as defined in § 27.4 of this chapter. Operation must cease immediately if harmful interference occurs to a 600 MHz service licensee.
(e) * * *
(2) The following distances outside of the area where a 600 MHz service licensee has commenced operations, as defined in § 27.4 of this chapter.
(a) * * *
(5)
(a)
(i)
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) 600 MHz service band operations in areas where the part 27 600 MHz service licensee has commenced operations, as defined in § 27.4 of this chapter.
(j) * * *
(10) 600 MHz service in areas where the part 27 600 MHz band licensee has commenced operations, as defined in § 27.4 of this chapter:
(n) Establish procedures to allow part 27 600 MHz service licensees to upload the registration information listed in § 15.713(j)(10) for areas where they have commenced operations, as defined in § 27.4 of this chapter, and to allow the removal and replacement of registration information in the database when corrections or updates are necessary.
47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336, 337, 1403, 1404, 1451, and 1452, unless otherwise noted.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.
(g) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) A wireless licensee assigned to frequencies in the 600 MHz band under part 27 of this chapter must notify low power TV and TV translator stations of its intent to commence operations, as defined in § 27.4 of this chapter, and the likelihood of receiving harmful interference from the low power TV or TV translator station to such operations within the wireless licensee's licensed geographic service area.
(ii) * * *
(B) Indicate the date the new wireless licensee intends to commence operations, as defined in § 27.4 of this chapter, in areas where there is a likelihood of receiving harmful interference from the low power TV or TV translator station; and
(iii) Low power TV and TV translator stations may continue operating on frequencies in the 600 MHz band assigned to wireless licensees under part 27 of this chapter until the wireless licensee commences operations, as defined in § 27.4 of this chapter, as indicated in the notification sent pursuant to this paragraph.
(v) Low power TV and TV translator stations that are operating on the UHF spectrum that is reserved for guard band channels as a result of the broadcast television incentive auction conducted under section 6403 of the
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 336 and 554.
(h) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) A wireless licensee assigned to frequencies in the 600 MHz band under part 27 of this chapter must notify the licensee of a TV STL, TV relay station, or TV translator relay station of its intent to commence operations, as defined in § 27.4 of this chapter, and the likelihood of harmful interference from the TV STL, TV relay station, or TV translator relay station to those operations within the wireless licensee's licensed geographic service area.
(f)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.
This document contains proposed regulations that modify the nondiscrimination requirements applicable to certain retirement plans that provide additional benefits to a grandfathered group of employees following certain changes in the coverage of a defined benefit plan or a defined benefit plan formula. The proposed regulations also make certain other changes to the nondiscrimination rules that are not limited to these plans. These regulations would affect participants in, beneficiaries of, employers maintaining, and administrators of tax-qualified retirement plans.
Written or electronic comments and must be received by April 28, 2016. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for May 19, 2016 at 10 a.m., must be received by April 28, 2016.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-125761-14), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-125761-14), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the regulations, Kelly C. Scanlon and Linda S. F. Marshall at (202) 317-6700; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing, and/or being placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, Oluwafunmilayo (Funmi) Taylor at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).
Section 401(a)(4) provides generally that a plan is a qualified plan only if the contributions or benefits provided under the plan do not discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees. In 1991, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued comprehensive regulations under section 401(a)(4) (TD 8360, 56 FR 47524) setting forth several alternative methods for testing compliance with this statutory requirement. In 1993, the Treasury Department and the IRS made significant amendments to those regulations (TD 8485, 58 FR 46773).
Under the section 401(a)(4) regulations, a plan is permitted to demonstrate that either the contributions or the benefits provided under the plan are nondiscriminatory in amount, regardless of whether the plan is a defined benefit or defined contribution plan. See § 1.401(a)(4)-1(b)(2). In order to test a defined contribution plan on the basis of benefits, the amounts allocated to employees under the plan must be converted to equivalent benefits. This conversion is done using an interest rate between 7.5% and 8.5%.
After issuance of the final regulations, a new type of plan design developed. This type of plan is often referred to as a “new comparability” plan and is typically a defined contribution plan that provides higher allocation rates to an older and more highly compensated group of employees. This type of plan nonetheless satisfies the nondiscrimination requirements by testing the contributions on the basis of equivalent benefits because the conversion to equivalent benefits reflects assumed growth to normal retirement age and therefore results in relatively lower equivalent benefits for the highly compensated employees who are closer to normal retirement age. The Treasury Department and the IRS concluded that this type of plan was inconsistent with the intent behind the nondiscrimination regulations. Consequently, the Treasury Department and the IRS amended the section 401(a)(4) regulations in 2001 to require that a new comparability plan provide a higher minimum contribution to nonhighly compensated employees
This higher minimum contribution requirement was directed at the new comparability plans. Other defined contribution plans that provide “broadly available allocation rates” or allocation rates that are “based on a gradual age or service schedule” are not subject to the higher minimum contribution requirement even if they demonstrate compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements of section 401(a)(4) on the basis of equivalent benefits.
Since 2001, a number of employers have moved away from providing retirement benefits through traditional defined benefit plans. In many of these cases, employers have either significantly changed the type of benefit formula provided under the plan (such as in the case of a conversion to a cash balance plan), or have prohibited new employees from entering the plan entirely. The employers may then have allowed employees who had already begun participation in the defined benefit plan (or who are older or have been credited with longer service under the plan) to continue to earn pension benefits under the defined benefit plan while closing the plan or formula to all other employees. These defined benefit plans are sometimes referred to as “closed plans,” and the employees who continue to earn pension benefits under the closed plan are often known as a “grandfathered group of employees.” In situations in which new employees continue to earn benefits under the defined benefit plan, but are under a new formula, any formula that continues to apply to a grandfathered group of employees is sometimes referred to as a “closed formula.”
Closed plans are required to meet the coverage rules under section 410(b) and the nondiscrimination rules under section 401(a)(4) (including a nondiscrimination requirement regarding the availability of benefits, rights, and features). Many closed plans, however, may eventually find it difficult to meet these requirements because the proportion of the grandfathered group of employees who are highly compensated employees compared to the employer's total workforce increases over time. This occurs because members of the grandfathered group of employees usually continue to receive pay raises (and so may become highly compensated employees), and new employees (who are generally nonhighly compensated employees) are not covered by the closed plan.
When a closed defined benefit plan can no longer meet the nondiscrimination requirements on a stand-alone basis because of the demographic changes previously described, it can demonstrate compliance with section 401(a)(4) by aggregating with the employer's defined contribution plan. In general, it is easier to meet the nondiscrimination requirements if the resulting DB/DC plan demonstrates compliance with section 401(a)(4) based on the benefits or equivalent benefits provided to the employees (rather than based on contributions).
On January 6, 2014, the Treasury Department and the IRS published Notice 2014-5, 2014-2 I.R.B. 276. Notice 2014-5 provided temporary nondiscrimination relief for certain closed plans. Specifically, under Notice 2014-5, if certain criteria are satisfied,
Notice 2014-5 also requested comments on whether the section 401(a)(4) regulations should be amended to provide additional alternatives that would allow a DB/DC plan to satisfy the nondiscrimination in amount requirements on the basis of equivalent benefits, and whether certain other permanent changes should be made to the nondiscrimination regulations, such as modifications to the rules regarding nondiscriminatory benefits, rights, and features.
The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that permanent changes to the nondiscrimination rules should be made in order to help employers and plan sponsors preserve the retirement expectations of certain grandfathered groups of employees. These changes are meant to apply to situations in which the proportion of the grandfathered group of employees who are highly compensated employees compared to the employer's total workforce has increased due to ordinary demographic changes, as previously described in this preamble.
The proposed regulations modify a number of provisions in the existing regulations under section 401(a)(4) to address situations and plan designs, including closed plans and formulas, that were not contemplated in the development of the regulations and the 2001 amendments. While many of the changes in the proposed regulations provide nondiscrimination relief for certain closed plans and formulas, the proposed regulations also include other changes that are not limited to closed plans and formulas.
The proposed regulations set forth special rules that allow closed plans and similar arrangements to satisfy the nondiscrimination rules in additional situations. These special rules are based on the existing rules for DBRAs, as modified to respond to concerns raised by stakeholders with respect to those existing rules.
Under the proposed regulations, the eligibility conditions set forth in the modified DBRA rules (described in section II.A of this portion of the preamble) provide a framework for the eligibility conditions for the snapshot rule related to closed plans in a DB/DC plan (described in section II.B of this portion of the preamble). The modified DBRA rules are also used as a basis for the special testing rule for benefits, rights, and features provided to a grandfathered group of employees (described in section II.C of this portion of the preamble). For example, the special testing rule for a benefit, right, or feature provided to a grandfathered group of employees under a defined contribution plan establishes nondiscrimination relief for matching contributions provided to a
The proposed regulations modify the rules applicable to DBRAs under § 1.401(a)(4)-8, which allow certain defined contribution plan allocations to be disregarded when determining whether a defined contribution plan has broadly available allocation rates. The rules applicable to DBRAs allow employers to provide, in a nondiscriminatory manner, certain allocations to replace defined benefit plan retirement benefits without having to satisfy the minimum aggregate allocation gateway. The modifications in the proposed regulations are intended to allow more allocations to fit within the DBRA rules. For example, under the existing regulations a DBRA must be reasonably designed to replace the benefits that would have been provided under the closed defined benefit plan. The proposed regulations provide greater flexibility in this respect and allow the allocations to be reasonably designed to replace some or all of the benefits that would have been provided under the closed plan, subject to a requirement that the allocations be provided in a consistent manner to all similarly situated employees.
The proposed regulations incorporate a modified version of the conditions for an allocation to be a DBRA that were reflected in Rev. Rul. 2001-30, 2001-2 C.B. 46. For example, under one of the conditions set forth in Rev. Rul. 2001-30, in order for an allocation to be a DBRA, the defined benefit plan's benefit formula for the group of employees who formerly benefitted under that plan must have generated equivalent normal allocation rates that increased from year to year as employees attained higher ages. The proposed regulations ease this restriction on the types of defined benefit plans with respect to which a DBRA can be provided by allowing a DBRA also to replace the benefit provided under a defined benefit plan with a benefit formula that generated equivalent normal allocation rates that increased from year to year as employees were credited with additional years of service (rather than only as the employees attained higher ages).
The existing regulation also requires that the group of employees who receive a DBRA must be a nondiscriminatory group of employees, and Rev. Rul. 2001-30 interprets this rule as requiring that the group of employees satisfy the minimum coverage requirements of section 410(b) (determined without regard to the average benefit percentage test). The proposed regulations incorporate this interpretation, but limit its application so that the rule only applies for the first 5 years after the closure date. In addition, the proposed regulations incorporate the interpretation in Rev. Rul. 2001-30 regarding whether the defined benefit plan was an established nondiscriminatory defined benefit plan by requiring that the closed plan be in effect for 5 years before the closure date (with one year substituted for 5 years, as provided by Rev. Rul. 2001-30, in the case of a defined benefit plan maintained by a former employer) with no substantial change to the closed plan during that time (except for certain permitted amendments allowed by the proposed regulations).
In addition, the proposed regulations expand the list of permitted amendments to a closed plan that do not prevent allocations under a plan from being DBRAs. For example, the proposed regulations permit an amendment to a closed plan during the 5-year period before it was closed, provided that the amendment does not increase the accrued benefit or future accruals for any employee, does not expand coverage, and does not reduce the ratio-percentage under any applicable nondiscrimination test. In addition, under the proposed regulations, an amendment during this period could extend coverage to an acquired group of employees provided that all similarly situated employees within that group are treated in a consistent manner.
As under the existing regulations, the proposed regulations contain a general restriction on plan amendments relating to a DBRA; however, the proposed regulations expand the list of plan amendments that are excepted from this rule. The proposed regulations retain the exception from this restriction on plan amendments for an amendment that makes
The proposed regulations add a new exception to the requirement that a DB/DC plan must satisfy the minimum aggregate allocation gateway once the other conditions under § 1.401(a)(4)-9 are not met (the “closed plan rule”). This closed plan rule, which applies to a DB/DC plan that includes a closed plan, provides an exception to the minimum aggregate allocation gateway that would otherwise apply, but only if the closed plan was in effect for 5 years before the closure date and no significant change was made to the closed plan during or since that time (except for certain permitted amendments).
The DB/DC plan may use this closed plan rule for a plan year that begins on or after the fifth anniversary of the closure date. To be eligible for the closed plan rule, during the 5-year period following the closure date, either the DB/DC plan must satisfy the nondiscrimination in amount requirement of section 401(a)(4) without using the minimum aggregate allocation gateway, or the closed plan must satisfy that requirement without aggregation with any defined contribution plan. This requirement is comparable to the requirement that the group of employees who receive DBRAs must be a group of employees who satisfy the minimum coverage requirements of section 410(b).
Under the proposed regulations, certain amendments to a closed defined benefit plan do not prevent the plan from using the closed plan rule. These plan amendments are intended to allow a plan sponsor of a closed plan to address changed circumstances. For example, under the proposed regulations, a plan amendment during the 5-year period ending on the closure date does not prevent the plan from later using the closed plan rule, provided that the plan amendment does not increase the accrued benefit or future accruals for any employee, does not expand coverage, and does not reduce the ratio percentage under any applicable nondiscrimination test. Similarly, an amendment to the closed plan is permitted after the closure date, provided that the amendment does not reduce the ratio percentage under any applicable nondiscrimination test. Thus, for example, under the proposed regulations, a plan sponsor may add nonhighly compensated employees to a coverage group after it is closed in order to satisfy the nondiscrimination rules.
The proposed regulations establish a special nondiscrimination testing rule under § 1.401(a)(4)-4 that applies if a benefit, right, or feature is made available only to a grandfathered group of employees with respect to a closed plan. This special rule provides relief in certain circumstances from certain nondiscrimination testing for a benefit, right, or feature provided under the closed plan, or for a rate of matching contributions provided to a grandfathered group under a defined contribution plan.
If the eligibility conditions are satisfied, the special testing rule treats a benefit, right, or feature that is provided only to a grandfathered group of employees as satisfying the current and effective availability tests of § 1.401(a)(4)-4(b) and (c). The special testing rule applies to plan years beginning on or after the fifth anniversary of the closure date and applies on a plan-year by plan-year basis. To be eligible for the special testing rule, the benefit, right or feature must be currently available to a group of employees that satisfies the minimum coverage requirements of section 410(b) for the plan years that begin within 5 years after the closure date. Once the special testing rule applies to a benefit, right, or feature, the special testing rule continues to apply for purposes of that benefit, right, or feature indefinitely (unless a later amendment changes the eligibility for the benefit, right, or feature). If a plan amendment changes the eligibility for the benefit, right, or feature after the closure date, then the special testing rule will cease to apply (subject to certain specified exceptions).
If the benefit, right, or feature that is available solely to a grandfathered group of employees is provided under a defined benefit plan, then it must be provided under the closed plan (rather than a different defined benefit plan). This is because the purpose of the special rule is to accommodate a plan amendment under which the benefit formula has been changed, but the prior benefit formula has been preserved for a grandfathered group of employees and the benefit, right, or feature is made available only to the grandfathered group of employees who continue to accrue benefits under the prior benefit formula.
The special testing rule for a benefit, right, or feature provided under the closed plan also requires that the benefit, right, or feature has been in effect without being amended for a 5-year period before the closure date (subject to a limited exception for acquired employees). This rule is designed to ensure that the special treatment is available only for a long-standing provision and cannot be used for a benefit, right, or feature that has not been provided long enough for participants to have established a reasonable expectation that it will continue. In addition, this rule prevents a plan sponsor from obtaining special treatment for a benefit, right, or feature added shortly before and in anticipation of the closure of the plan. The proposed regulations set forth a list of permitted plan amendments that do not result in the loss of this special testing rule that are generally comparable to the list of permitted amendments for other closed plan arrangements.
The special testing rule also applies to a rate of matching contributions under a defined contribution plan that meets certain requirements. In order to be eligible for this testing rule, the rate of matching contributions must be reasonably designed so that the matching contributions will replace some or all of the value of the benefit accruals that each employee in the grandfathered group of employees would have been provided under the closed plan in the absence of a closure amendment. In addition, the rate of matching contributions for the grandfathered group of employees must be provided in a consistent manner to all similarly situated employees.
In addition to providing a special rule for closed plans and similar arrangements, the proposed regulations generally ease the rules under which any DB/DC plan can satisfy the nondiscrimination in amount requirement on the basis of benefits. These changes are intended to facilitate the ongoing maintenance of a defined benefit plan that provides coverage to a group of employees that is determined using a reasonable business classification.
The proposed regulations expand the ability to use the average of the equivalent allocation rates under the defined benefit plan for purposes of satisfying the minimum aggregate allocation gateway by permitting the averaging of allocation rates for nonhighly compensated employees under the defined contribution plan for this purpose. This modification is intended to better accommodate plan sponsors that have a defined contribution plan with service- or age-based allocation formulas. The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that it is appropriate, in this context, to allow shorter-service nonhighly compensated employees to be provided less than the minimum aggregate allocation gateway rate, as long as longer-service nonhighly compensated employees are provided allocation rates that are sufficiently higher than the minimum aggregate allocation gateway rate. The Treasury Department and the IRS are considering whether any restrictions on this rule are appropriate so that the rule serves its intended purpose of facilitating formulas that provide higher allocation rates to longer-service nonhighly compensated employees, and invite comments on ways to permit appropriate flexibility while ensuring the provision is not used to circumvent the purpose of the nondiscrimination rules.
The proposed regulations also include a limitation on the averaging of rates that applies to both defined contribution and defined benefit plans in order to minimize the impact of outliers. In general, this special rule applies a cap under which any equivalent normal allocation rate or allocation rate in excess of 15% is treated as equal to 15%. However, this cap is raised to 25% for any allocation rate or equivalent normal allocation rate that results solely
In addition, under the proposed regulations, the average of the matching contributions actually made for nonhighly compensated employees may be used to a limited extent (up to 3 percent of compensation) for purposes of determining whether each nonhighly compensated employee satisfies the minimum aggregate allocation gateway test. Thus, for example, if the minimum aggregate allocation gateway is 7% and the average of the matching contributions actually made for nonhighly compensated employees is 3%, then a non-elective contribution of 4% for each individual would be needed in order to satisfy the minimum aggregate allocation gateway under the proposed regulations. The regulations use the average matching contributions, rather than matching contributions allocated for each employee, in order to avoid diluting the incentive effect of an employer match.
The proposed regulations also provide a new alternative to the minimum aggregate allocation gateway. Under this alternative, a DB/DC plan is not required to satisfy the minimum aggregate allocation gateway if it can satisfy the nondiscrimination in amount requirement on the basis of equivalent benefits using an interest rate of 6%, rather than the current standard interest rate of between 7.5% and 8.5%.
The proposed regulations also include changes to address certain arrangements that take advantage of the flexibility in the existing nondiscrimination rules
Under the general test in the existing regulations, if a plan satisfies the minimum coverage requirements of section 410(b) using the average benefit percentage test, then the rate group for each highly compensated employee is treated as satisfying the minimum coverage requirements if the ratio percentage for the rate group is equal to the midpoint between the safe harbor and the unsafe harbor percentages (or the ratio percentage for the plan as a whole, if less). This rule recognizes that the composition of a rate group may be unpredictable and so the rate group should not be subject to a reasonable business classification standard. However, that same consideration is not relevant if the group of employees to whom the allocation formula under a defined contribution plan (or benefit formula under a defined benefit plan) applies is not a reasonable business classification.
Accordingly, the proposed regulations limit the existing rule under which a rate group with respect to a highly compensated employee is treated as satisfying the average benefit percentage test to those situations in which the allocation formula (or benefit formula) that applies to the highly compensated employee also applies to a reasonable business classification. For example, if a benefit formula applies solely to a highly compensated employee who is identified by name, it does not apply to a reasonable business classification. See § 1.410(b)-4(b). In such a case, the proposed regulations would require that the rate group with respect to that individual satisfy the ratio percentage test.
Except as described below, these regulations are proposed to be applicable to plan years beginning on or after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the
Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulation does not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the
• Whether guidance needs to be developed for a plan that has more than one closure or closure amendment?
• Whether the rules regarding transition allocations and successor employers are still needed in light of the modifications to the DBRA rules?
All comments will be available for public inspection and copying at
A public hearing has been scheduled for May 19, 2016, beginning at 10 a.m. in the Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Because of building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Due to access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit written or electronic comments by April 28, 2016 and an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic by April 28, 2016. A signed paper or electronic copy of the outline should be submitted as prescribed in this preamble under the
For copies of recently issued Revenue Procedures, Revenue Rulings, notices, and other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin, please visit the IRS Web site at
The principal authors of these proposed regulations are Kelly C. Scanlon and Linda S. F. Marshall, IRS Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Department of Treasury participated in the development of the proposed regulations.
Income taxes, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
The additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(5) Effective/applicability date.
(d) * * *
(8) Special testing rule for grandfathered group of employees.
(a) * * *
(4) Effective/applicability date.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii)
(A) The formula that is used to determine the allocation for the HCE with respect to whom the rate group is established applies to a group of employees that satisfies the reasonable classification requirement of § 1.410(b)-4(b); and
(B) The ratio percentage of the rate group is greater than or equal to the midpoint between the safe and unsafe harbor percentages applicable to the plan (or the ratio percentage of the plan, if that percentage is less).
(4) * * *
(a) The facts are the same as in
(b) There are two rate groups in Plan D. Rate group 1 consists of H1 and all those employees who have an allocation rate greater than or equal to H1's allocation rate (5.0 percent). Thus, rate group 1 consists of H1, H2 and N1 through N4. Rate group 2 consists of H2, and all those employees who have an allocation rate greater than or equal to H2's allocation rate (7.5 percent). Thus, rate group 2 consists of H2 and N4.
(c) Rate group 1 satisfies the ratio percentage test under § 1.410(b)-2(b)(2) because the ratio percentage of the rate group is 100 percent—that is, 100 percent (the percentage of all nonhighly compensated nonexcludable employees who are in the rate group) divided by 100 percent (the percentage of all highly compensated nonexcludable employees who are in the rate group).
(d) Rate group 2 does not satisfy the ratio percentage test of § 1.410(b)-2(b)(2) because the ratio percentage of the rate group is 50 percent—that is, 25 percent (the percentage of all nonhighly compensated nonexcludable employees who are in the rate group) divided by 50 percent (the percentage of all highly compensated nonexcludable employees who are in the rate group).
(e) However, under paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section rate group 2 satisfies the nondiscriminatory classification test of § 1.410(b)-4 because (i) the formula that is used to determine the allocation for H2 applies to a group of employees that satisfies the reasonable classification requirement of § 1.410(b)-4(b) (in this case, because it applies to all the employees) and (ii) the ratio percentage of the rate group (50 percent) is greater than the midpoint between the safe harbor and unsafe harbor percentages
(f) Under paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section, rate group 2 satisfies the average benefit percentage test if Plan D satisfies the average benefit percentage test. (The requirement that Plan D satisfy the average benefit percentage test applies even though Plan D satisfies the ratio percentage test and would ordinarily not need to run the average benefit percentage test.) If Plan D satisfies the average benefit percentage test, then rate group 2 satisfies section 410(b); thus, Plan D satisfies the general test in paragraph (c)(1) of this section because each rate group under the plan satisfies section 410(b).
(a) Plan E satisfies section 410(b) by satisfying the nondiscriminatory classification test of § 1.410(b)-4 and the average benefit percentage test of § 1.410(b)-5 (without regard to § 1.410(b)-5(f)). See § 1.410(b)-2(b)(3). Plan E uses the facts-and-circumstances requirements of § 1.410(b)-4(c)(3) to satisfy the nondiscriminatory classification test of § 1.410(b)-4. The safe and unsafe harbor percentages applicable to the plan under § 1.410(b)-4(c)(4) are 29 and 20 percent, respectively. Plan E has a ratio percentage of 22 percent. Rate group 1 under Plan E has a ratio percentage of 23 percent. The formula that is used to determine the allocation for the HCE with respect to whom rate group 1 was formed applies to all other employees.
(b) Under paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section, rate group 1 satisfies the nondiscriminatory classification requirement of § 1.410(b)-4, because (i) the formula that is used to determine the allocation for the HCE with respect to whom the rate group was formed applies to a group of employees that satisfies the reasonable classification requirement of § 1.410(b)-4(b) (in this case, because it applies to all the employees) and (ii) the ratio percentage of the rate group (23 percent) is greater than the lesser of—
(1) The ratio percentage for the plan as a whole (22 percent); and
(2) The midpoint between the safe and unsafe harbor percentages (24.5 percent).
(c) Under paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section, the rate group satisfies section 410(b) because the plan satisfies the average benefit percentage test of § 1.410(b)-5.
(a) Employer Z maintains a defined contribution plan, Plan F. Employer Z has six nonexcludable employees, all of whom benefit under Plan F. There is one HCE (H1) and five NHCEs (N1 through N5). There is one rate group under Plan F. The formula that is used to determine the allocation for H1 is the greater of $20,000 or 10% of compensation for the year. The formula that applies to determine the allocation for N1 through N5 is 10% of compensation.
(b) Under paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section, the rate group with respect to H1 does not satisfy the nondiscriminatory classification test under § 1.410(b)-4 because the formula that is used to determine the allocation for H1 (with respect to whom the rate group is established) only applies to H1. Therefore, the rate group will satisfy paragraph (c)(3) of this section only if the ratio percentage of the rate group is greater than or equal to 70 percent. This ratio percentage test applies even if H1's compensation is greater than $200,000. In such a case, the rate group will pass the ratio percentage test (and accordingly the plan will satisfy the general test of this paragraph (c)) because each employee receives an allocation of 10% of compensation and therefore the ratio percentage for the rate group is equal to 100%.
The facts are the same as in
(5)
(c) * * *
(2)
(d) * * *
(8)
(A) No plan amendment that affects the availability of the benefit, right, or feature (other than the closure amendment) has an applicable amendment date (within the meaning of § 1.411(d)-3(g)(4)) that is within the period that begins on the closure date and ends on the last day of the plan year; and
(B) The additional requirements of paragraph (d)(8)(ii) or (iii) of this section, whichever is applicable, are satisfied.
(ii)
(A) The defined benefit plan under which the benefit, right, or feature is provided is the closed defined benefit plan;
(B) No plan amendment that affects the availability of the benefit, right, or feature (other than the closure amendment) has an applicable amendment date that is within the 5-year period ending on the closure date; and
(C) The closure amendment that restricted the availability of the benefit, right, or feature, making it available only to the grandfathered group of employees, must also have provided for a significant change in the type of benefit formula under the plan (such as a change from a benefit formula that is not a statutory hybrid benefit formula to a lump sum-based benefit formula).
(iii)
(A) The benefit, right, or feature must be a right to a rate of matching contributions provided under the defined contribution plan;
(B) The rate of matching contributions must be reasonably designed so that the matching contributions will replace some or all of the value of the benefit accruals that each employee in the grandfathered group of employees would have been provided under the closed defined benefit plan in the absence of a closure amendment (based on the terms of that plan and the section 415(b)(1)(A) dollar limit in effect immediately prior to the closure date);
(C) The closed defined benefit plan must satisfy the conditions set forth in § 1.401(a)(4)-8(b)(1)(iii)(D)(
(D) The rate of matching contributions must be provided in a consistent manner to all similarly situated employees.
(iv)
(A) An amendment adopted during the 5-year period ending on the closure date that extends eligibility for the benefit, right, or feature to an acquired group of employees provided that all similarly situated employees within that group are treated in a consistent manner.
(B) An amendment adopted after the closure date that expands or restricts the eligibility for the benefit, right, or feature, provided that, as of the applicable amendment date, the ratio percentage of the group of employees eligible for the benefit, right, or feature (taking into account the plan amendment) is not less than the ratio percentage of the group of employees eligible for the benefit, right, or feature provided before the amendment.
(C) An amendment adopted after the closure date that results in a replacement of the benefit, right, or feature with another benefit, right, or feature that is available to the same group of employees as the original benefit, right, or feature, provided that the original benefit, right, or feature is of inherently equal or greater value (within the meaning of paragraph (d)(4)(i)(A) of this section) than the benefit, right, or feature that replaces it.
(D) An amendment adopted after the closure date that results in a replacement of the benefit, right, or feature with another benefit, right, or feature that is available to the same group of employees as the original benefit, right, or feature, provided that there is only a
(E) An amendment that is permitted by guidance published by the Commissioner in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.
(v)
Employer A maintains Plan P, a defined benefit plan that provides for an annual benefit equal to 2% of an employee's average annual compensation multiplied by the employee's years of service. Plan P also provides for a subsidized early retirement benefit available to employees who retire between the ages of 55 and 65 with 20 years of service. Plan P was established in 2003. The plan year is a calendar year. For the 2015 plan year, Plan P satisfied the nondiscrimination requirements under sections 410(b) and 401(a)(4) without regard to the special rules under section 410(b)(6)(C) and without aggregation with any other plan.
(ii)
(iii)
The facts are the same as in
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(vi)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B)
(
(
(C)
(
(
(D)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(E)
(iv) * * *
(E)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(v)
(
(
(D) * * *
(
(
(
(
(
(F)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(G)
(1) Cease accruals under a benefit formula provided by the defined benefit plan for some or all employees whose benefits were previously determined under that benefit formula; or
(2) Limit participation in the defined benefit plan to a group of employees that consists of some or all of the plan participants who participated in the plan as of the closure date.
(a) * * *
(4)
(ii)
(iii)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Utah on February 25, 2013, August 5, 2013, and March 5, 2014. These submittals request SIP revisions to incorporate several changes to Utah's rules, including the permit public notice and comment process requirements, and renumbering for the “Interstate Transport” provisions. EPA is taking this action in accordance with section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Written comments must be received on or before February 29, 2016.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification Number EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0371. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Jody Ostendorf, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. 303-312-7814,
In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
If EPA receives no adverse comments, EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on a distinct provision of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. See the information provided in the Direct Final action of the same title which is located in the Rules and Regulations Section of this
42 U.S.C. 7401
Editorial Note: This document was received for publication by the Office of
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA is proposing revisions and confidentiality determinations for the petroleum and natural gas systems source category of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). In particular, the EPA is proposing to add new monitoring methods for detecting leaks from oil and gas equipment in the petroleum and natural gas systems source category consistent with the leak detection methods in the recently proposed new source performance standards (NSPS) for the oil and gas industry. The EPA is also proposing to add emission factors for leaking equipment to be used in conjunction with these monitoring methods to calculate and report greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from equipment leaks. Further, the EPA is proposing reporting requirements and confidentiality determinations for nine new or substantially revised data elements.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0764 to the
Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9263; fax number: (202) 343-2342; email address:
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of facilities than those listed in the table could also be subject to reporting requirements. To determine whether you are affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A and 40 CFR part 98, subpart W. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular facility, consult the person listed in the preceding
The first section of this preamble provides background information regarding the proposed amendments. This section also discusses the EPA's legal authority under the CAA to promulgate and amend 40 CFR part 98 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting (hereafter referred to as “part 98”) as well as the legal authority for making confidentiality determinations for the data to be reported. Section II of this preamble contains information on the proposed revisions to 40 CFR part 98, subpart W (hereafter referred to as “subpart W”). Section III of this preamble discusses proposed confidentiality determinations for the reporting of new and substantially revised data elements. Section IV of this preamble discusses the impacts of the proposed amendments to subpart W. Finally, section V of this preamble describes the statutory and executive order requirements applicable to this action.
On October 30, 2009, the EPA published part 98 for collecting information regarding GHGs from a broad range of industry sectors (74 FR 56260). Although reporting requirements for petroleum and natural gas systems were originally proposed to be part of part 98 (75 FR 16448, April 10, 2009), the final October 2009 rulemaking did not include the petroleum and natural gas systems source category as one of the 29 source categories for which reporting requirements were finalized. The EPA re-proposed subpart W in 2010 (79 FR 18608; April 12, 2010), and a subsequent final rulemaking was published on November 30, 2010, with the requirements for the petroleum and natural gas systems source category at 40 CFR part 98, subpart W (75 FR 74458) (hereafter referred to as “the final subpart W rulemaking”). Following promulgation, the EPA finalized several actions revising subpart W (76 FR 22825, April 25, 2011; 76 FR 53057, August 25, 2011; 76 FR 59533, September 27, 2011; 76 FR 80554, December 23, 2011; 77 FR 51477, August 24, 2012; 78 FR 25392, May 1, 2013; 78 FR 71904, November 29, 2013; 79 FR 70352, November 25, 2014; 80 FR 64262, October 22, 2015).
On March 28, 2014, the Obama Administration released the President's
Multiple studies have found that once leaks are detected, the vast majority can be repaired with a positive return to the operator. Often in these cases, a majority of emissions come from a minority of sources. Use of advanced monitoring methods, such as optical gas imaging (OGI), to detect these leaks as soon as practicable has several benefits: It reduces the amount of methane and other atmospheric pollutants that are emitted into our atmosphere, it reduces company losses of valuable commodities like methane, and improves operational and safety practices so that leaks can be identified and fixed more efficiently in the future.
Additionally, as part of the agency's broad-based strategy under the President's
As another part of the EPA's response to the President's
As a result of the proposed NSPS subpart OOOOa requirements for fugitive emissions monitoring and repair, plus voluntarily implemented leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs that companies may be undertaking through the Methane Challenge Program or other voluntary efforts, more facilities would have site-specific information on the types and number of components with fugitive emissions or leaks from each leak detection/monitoring survey. These data could be used to improve facility-level GHG emission estimates and track facility-level GHG emission reductions from equipment leaks for a variety of subpart W industry segments, including: Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production; Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Gathering and Boosting; Onshore Natural Gas Processing; Onshore Natural Gas Transmission Compression; Underground Natural Gas Storage; LNG Storage; and LNG Import and Export Equipment.
In this action, the EPA is proposing to amend subpart W to add new monitoring methods for detecting leaks from oil and gas equipment as well as to add emission factors to estimate emissions from leaking components (hereafter referred to as “leaker emission factors”) for multiple industry segments. The new monitoring methods would augment the equipment leak requirements in subpart W with the fugitive emissions detection methods proposed for the NSPS subpart OOOOa. If the NSPS subpart OOOOa is amended in the future to incorporate other emerging technologies and/or major advances in fugitive monitoring, then the subpart W requirements will be updated by reference as well. Under these proposed amendments, facilities with an NSPS subpart OOOOa affected well site or compressor station fugitive emissions source would use the data derived from the proposed NSPS subpart OOOOa fugitive emissions requirements along with the subpart W equipment leak survey calculation methodology and leaker emission factors to calculate and report their GHG emissions to the GHGRP. These proposed revisions would also provide the opportunity for other sources at subpart W facilities not covered by the proposed NSPS subpart OOOOa fugitive emissions standards (
The amendments in this proposed rulemaking would advance the EPA's goal of maximizing rule effectiveness. For example, these amendments would align the monitoring requirements in subpart W with those in the NSPS subpart OOOOa, reducing burden for entities subject to the fugitive leak detection requirements in both programs. In addition, this proposed rulemaking provides clear calculation and reporting requirements in subpart W for the proposed new leak detection method, thus enabling government, regulated entities, and the public to easily identify and understand rule requirements.
The EPA is seeking comment only on the issues specifically identified in this proposed rulemaking. We will not consider comments that are outside the scope of this proposed rulemaking, such as comments on the proposed requirements of the NSPS subpart OOOOa or the proposed Methane Challenge Program, in this rulemaking process.
The EPA is proposing these rulemaking amendments under its existing CAA authority provided in CAA section 114. As stated in the preamble to the 2009 final GHG reporting rulemaking (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009), CAA section 114(a)(1) provides the EPA broad authority to require the information proposed to be gathered by this rulemaking because such data would inform and are relevant to the EPA's carrying out a wide variety of CAA provisions. See the preambles to the proposed (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009) and final GHG reporting rulemaking (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009) for further information.
In addition, the EPA is proposing confidentiality determinations for proposed new data elements in subpart W under its authorities provided in sections 114, 301, and 307 of the CAA. Section 114(c) of the CAA requires that the EPA make information obtained under section 114 available to the public, except where information qualifies for confidential treatment. The Administrator has determined that this proposed rulemaking is subject to the provisions of section 307(d) of the CAA.
The EPA is planning to address the comments we receive on these proposed changes and finalize the proposed amendments before the end of 2016. The EPA expects that the final amendments would be published at the same time as or soon after the final NSPS subpart OOOOa is published to ensure that these amendments are aligned. Owners or operators of facilities in the petroleum and natural gas system industry segments that conduct equipment leak detection surveys between the effective date of these final amendments and the end of 2016 would use that information along with information satisfying the provisions of the final amendments to subpart W (including final leaker emission factors)
As noted in section I.B of this preamble, we are proposing to add new monitoring methods for detecting leaks and to add leaker emission factors to align the equipment leak requirements in subpart W with the fugitive emissions monitoring methods proposed for the NSPS subpart OOOOa. These proposed additions would refine the site-specific equipment leak emission estimates provided under the GHGRP for facilities conducting fugitive emissions monitoring. The proposed amendments would also allow facilities to use a consistent method to demonstrate compliance with multiple EPA programs. This proposal would limit burden for subpart W facilities with affected sources that would also be required to comply with the proposed NSPS subpart OOOOa by allowing them to use data derived from the implementation of the NSPS subpart OOOOa to calculate emissions for the GHGRP rather than requiring the use of different monitoring methods or requiring the use of population emission factors even though additional information using a direct leak detection method is available.
In addition, these proposed amendments are responsive to comments received on previous subpart W rulemaking efforts. For example, as part of the amendments proposed on December 9, 2014 (79 FR 73148), we received comments generally requesting that reporters be allowed to use information that provides the best representation of emissions from specific sources, including monitoring for equipment leaks, rather than prescribing one specific calculation method across the industry segment. As noted in section I.B of this preamble, reporters in the Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production and Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Gathering and Boosting industry segments currently must use facility equipment counts and population emission factors to estimate equipment leak emissions. These proposed amendments would allow reporters in those segments to use the information from a leak survey conducted on their equipment to calculate and report GHG emissions to the GHGRP, which may provide more accurate estimates than the current method used for their equipment leak emissions. In the same December 2014 proposed rulemaking, we specifically requested comment on the use of advanced innovative monitoring methods for compliance with subpart W monitoring requirements (see 79 FR 73158). Commenters from several environmental organizations supported the addition of such methods; industry commenters generally stated that optical remote sensing or real time monitoring methods should not be required in subpart W, but they noted that if owners or operators already use these methods, then they should be allowed to use the results as alternatives to other required subpart W monitoring requirements.
As a first step, the EPA is proposing to add OGI as specified in the proposed NSPS subpart OOOOa to the list of methods for detecting equipment leaks in 40 CFR 98.234(a). Subpart W currently includes an OGI method in this list of methods (see 40 CFR 98.234(a)(1)), but the current subpart W OGI method is not consistent with the OGI method in the proposed NSPS subpart OOOOa. As part of the NSPS subpart OOOOa, the EPA is proposing that the OGI monitoring of fugitive emissions components be carried out through the development and implementation of monitoring plans, which would specify the measures for locating fugitive emissions components and the detection technology to be used. Specifically, the proposed NSPS subpart OOOOa would require affected facilities to develop a corporate-wide fugitive emissions monitoring plan that describes the OGI instrument and how the OGI survey would be conducted to ensure that fugitive emissions can be imaged effectively pursuant to specified criteria in the proposed rulemaking, as well as a site-specific fugitive emissions monitoring plan that includes a sitemap and defines the path the operator will take to ensure all fugitive emissions components are monitored. The proposed addition of this specific OGI method to subpart W as 40 CFR 98.234(a)(6) would align the methods in the two rulemakings and allow subpart W facilities to directly use information derived from the implementation of the fugitive emissions monitoring conducted under the NSPS subpart OOOOa to calculate and report emissions to the GHGRP. Consistent with that goal, the EPA expects that the final amendments to subpart W would reference the final version of the method(s) in the NSPS subpart OOOOa, including any changes made to the NSPS subpart OOOOa in response to comments on the proposed method.
We request comment on whether there are other methods for detecting equipment leaks that should be added to subpart W, either because they are commonly used across the industry or because they would align the subpart W methods with the methods in another federal, state, or local regulation.
The EPA is also proposing to provide the opportunity to use the leak survey monitoring and calculation methodology to additional reporters in subpart W. For example, in the Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production and the Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Gathering and Boosting industry segments, subpart W presently requires reporters to count the number of equipment components of each type (
Some studies have found that the majority of a facility's mass emissions from equipment leaks come from a small percentage of equipment components that have high leak rates.
Specifically, facilities with affected sources that are required to conduct fugitive emissions monitoring to comply with the proposed NSPS subpart OOOOa would be required to count the actual number of components with fugitive emissions identified through implementation of the NSPS subpart OOOOa as leaks for purposes for subpart W and use those counts with the leak survey calculation methodology in subpart W to determine equipment leak emissions for those components. If equipment leak surveys are conducted for other purposes, and the other sources and/or facilities are using one of the methods in 40 CFR 98.234(a), the reporter would have the option to use either the number of leaks with the equipment leak survey methodology in subpart W or the facility component counts with the population emission factors. The EPA's intent with this provision is to allow flexibility for Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production and Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Gathering and Boosting reporters whose leak survey method may not align exactly with one of the existing methods in subpart W or the NSPS subpart OOOOa proposed method to continue to use component counts as needed. However, the EPA would expect that any reporter conducting leak surveys that align with the proposed method (or any existing leak detection method in subpart W), whether required by the NSPS subpart OOOOa or part of a voluntary program such as the Methane Challenge Program, would use those results for their subpart W annual reporting, because the additional burden of completing the emissions calculation after a leak survey has been conducted would be similar to using the existing subpart W facility equipment count and population emission factor method and the results would be more representative of the number of leaks at the facility than the existing subpart W method. We request comment on whether there are other situations for which subpart W should require a reporter to use the results of equipment leak surveys conducted using one of the methods in subpart W (
To quantify emissions from the leaking components, subpart W includes leaker emission factors for each segment using the equipment leak survey methodology. In contrast to the population emission factors, which are multiplied by the total facility component counts, leaker emission factors are multiplied by the actual number of leaks identified by the leak survey for each component type. Subpart W does not currently include leaker emission factors for: (1) The Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production industry segment; (2) the Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Gathering and Boosting industry segment; (3) storage wellheads in gas service in the Underground Natural Gas Storage industry segment; (4) LNG storage components in gas service in the LNG Storage industry segment; or (5) LNG terminals components in gas service for the LNG Import and Export Equipment industry segment. In this rulemaking, we are proposing a new set of leaker emission factors for these sources/segments. For industry segments that already include a set of leaker emission factors, we are proposing to expand that set of leaker emission factors to include certain additional components to fully encompass the fugitive emissions components as defined in the proposed NSPS subpart OOOOa. See section II.C of this preamble for more information on the development of the proposed leaker emission factors.
The EPA is also proposing to add new reporting requirements for facilities conducting equipment leak surveys to report equipment leak emissions under subpart W. Reporters in the Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production and the Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Gathering and Boosting industry segments that begin reporting emissions using the leak survey methodology would be required to report the information currently listed in 40 CFR 98.236(q)(1) and (2), including the number of equipment leak surveys, component type, number of leaking components, average time the components were assumed to be leaking, and annual carbon dioxide (CO
In addition, the EPA is proposing to add three new reporting requirements for facilities conducting equipment leak surveys in all of the above segments as well as the Natural Gas Distribution segment. First, facilities in those segments would be required to report the method(s) in 40 CFR 98.234(a) used to conduct the survey(s). Second, facilities would be required to indicate whether any of their component types are subject to the NSPS subpart OOOOa. Finally, facilities would be required to indicate whether they elected to use the equipment leak survey methodology for any of their component types.
As a first step, the EPA is proposing to align the subpart W equipment components with the proposed NSPS subpart OOOOa definition of “fugitive emissions component,” to the extent practical. A “fugitive emissions component” is proposed by the NSPS subpart OOOOa to include any component that has the potential to emit fugitive emissions of CH
Some of the components listed in the NSPS subpart OOOOa proposed definition of fugitive emissions component are already included as part of the subpart W equipment leaks calculation methodology, while other fugitive emissions components are specifically addressed in other calculation methodologies in subpart W.
Based on this evaluation, we determined that the subpart W calculation methodology for storage tanks already generally includes emissions from thief hatches or other openings on storage vessels. Similarly, the subpart W methodologies for gas-liquid separators include all potential emissions from these sources. Therefore, these sources are not considered equipment leak components in the proposed amendments to subpart W. We request comment on whether the EPA should consider separate approaches for controlled storage tanks and uncontrolled storage tanks.
We also evaluated the subpart W compressor emission calculation methodologies to identify sources of overlap between these methodologies and the fugitive emission components included in the proposed NSPS subpart OOOOa. As noted previously, subpart W has specific calculation methodologies for centrifugal and reciprocating compressors. For centrifugal compressors, emission sources include wet seal oil degassing vent (for centrifugal compressors with wet seals), blowdown valve leakage, and isolation valve leakage. For reciprocating compressors, emission sources include reciprocating compressor rod packing vents, blowdown valve leakage, and isolation valve leakage. For compressors in the Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production and the Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Gathering and Boosting industry segments, the compressor methods only cover emissions from the centrifugal compressor wet seal oil degassing vent and from the reciprocating compressor rod packing vent. Thus, for these industry segments, blowdown valve leakage and isolation valve leakage are proposed to be included as equipment leaks. For the Natural Gas Processing, Onshore Natural Gas Transmission Compression, Underground Natural Gas Storage, LNG Storage, and LNG Import and Export Equipment segments, subpart W requires reporters to make “as found” or continuous measurements for compressor emission sources, so the reporters will have either direct measurement data or site-specific emission factors by which to calculate emissions from all of the compressor sources listed above. Therefore, we are proposing to exclude these sources from the equipment leak calculation requirements.
We are also proposing that for purposes of subpart W, all other fugitive emissions components as defined in the proposed NSPS subpart OOOOa not specifically identified above (
We note that some studies have identified unusually large fugitive emissions from some sources while conducting OGI or other advanced innovative monitoring studies. Often in these cases, a majority of emissions come from a minority of sources. This means that some sources have emissions significantly higher than would be calculated using average emission factors and average component types. Sources included in the subset of a data set that contribute to the majority of emissions are sometimes referred to as “super emitters.”
Next, we reviewed available literature studies in order to determine appropriate leaker emission factors separately for the relevant industry segments. For the Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production industry segment, we first evaluated the EPA/Gas Research Institute (GRI) data set on which the current subpart W population emission factors are based. The EPA/GRI data set is based on surveys conducted using EPA Method 21 with a leak defined as a monitor reading of 10,000 ppmv or higher. We also evaluated more recent studies conducted at natural gas production facilities. As described in greater detail in the memorandum entitled “Technical Support for Leak Detection Methodology Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0764, we concluded that the EPA/GRI data set provides sufficient data to develop leaker emission factors for this industry segment and that using this data set for the leaker emission factors provides consistency with the population emission factors used by reporters that do not conduct leak detection surveys. Due to differences in the monitoring methods, it is possible that the average emissions rate of a leak identified using EPA Method 21 may be different from the average emissions rate of a leak identified using OGI. While the OGI study data generally yielded larger leaker factors than those developed from the EPA/GRI data set, we found that leaker emission factors determined from more recent OGI study data for natural gas production facilities agreed reasonably well with the leaker emission factors developed from the EPA/GRI data set, suggesting that the EPA/GRI leaker emission factor estimates are still valid for this industry segment. Furthermore, the EPA/GRI data set is more robust for some components than some of the other studies, and the resulting leaker emission factors are well-established. We request comment on the basis for the leaker emission factors for the Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production industry segment (
For the Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Gathering and Boosting industry segment, the more recent OGI studies again suggested that the average
The Onshore Natural Gas Processing industry segment has leaker emission factors in subpart W for most traditional equipment leak components. Based on the proposed NSPS subpart OOOOa, the fugitive emissions monitoring requirements for this industry segment would be limited to “equipment,” which includes pumps, pressure relief devices, open-ended lines, valves, flanges and other connectors. Subpart W currently includes leaker emission factors in Table W-2 for all of these equipment component types except pumps. Therefore, we are proposing to add a leaker emission factor for pumps to Table W-2 based on the data set used to develop the existing leaker emission factors for the Onshore Natural Gas Processing industry segment. We request comment on the basis for the leaker emission factors for pumps in the Onshore Natural Gas Processing industry segment.
The NSPS subpart OOOOa proposed definition of fugitive emissions components includes a number of other components that are not the traditional “equipment” covered by traditional EPA Method 21 monitoring programs. In many cases, these additional components are not already included in other calculation methodologies in subpart W and should be considered within the subpart W equipment leak calculation methodologies. Therefore, we determined it necessary to develop additional leaker emission factors to augment the existing leaker emission factors in Tables W-3 through W-6 of subpart W in order to harmonize the subpart W equipment leak calculations with the proposed requirements in the NSPS subpart OOOOa. First, we reviewed the existing leaker emission factors in Tables W-3 through W-6 compared to the proposed definition of “fugitive emissions components” in the proposed NSPS subpart OOOOa to identify any discrepancies. Based on this review, we identified certain fugitive emissions components for which new leaker emission factors were needed. Therefore, we are proposing new leaker emission factors for flanges and “other” fugitive components and proposing to expand the existing leaker emission factor for meters to also include instruments in Tables W-3 and W-4 for the Onshore Natural Gas Transmission Compression and Underground Natural Gas Storage industry segments, respectively. We are also proposing to add leaker emission factors for traditional equipment components for storage wellheads for equipment in gas service within Table W-4. We are proposing to add these same leaker emission factors for traditional equipment components in gas service for LNG storage components within Table W-5 and for LNG terminal components within Table W-6.
Consistent with the approach used for developing the new leaker emission factors for the Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production and Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Gathering and Boosting segments, we used the same historic data sets upon which the existing leaker emission factors were developed to develop leaker emission factors for these additional components. For more detail regarding the development of these additional leaker emission factors for the Onshore Natural Gas Transmission Compression, the Underground Natural Gas Storage, the LNG Storage, and the LNG Import and Export Equipment industry segments, see the memorandum “Technical Support for Leak Detection Methodology Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0764. We request comment on the basis for the proposed new leaker emission factors for these industry segments.
In this proposed rulemaking, we are proposing confidentiality determinations for nine new or substantially revised data elements proposed to be reported by the following segments: Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production; Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Gathering and Boosting; Onshore Natural Gas Processing; Onshore Natural Gas Transmission Compression; Underground Natural Gas Storage; LNG Storage; LNG Import and Export Equipment, and Natural Gas Distribution. These data elements include new or substantially revised reporting requirements for existing facilities already reporting under subpart W. The data elements are: (1) The number of complete equipment leak surveys performed during the calendar year; (2) whether any equipment leak component types are subject to the NSPS subpart OOOOa; (3) whether a reporter elected to report to subpart W using the equipment leak survey methodology; (4) the method(s) in 40 CFR 98.234(a) used to conduct the leak survey; (5) component type; (6) the number of each type of component identified as leaking; (7) the average time each type of surveyed components is assumed to be leaking and operational; (8) annual CO
The final confidentiality determinations the EPA has previously made for the remainder of the subpart W data elements are unaffected by these proposed amendments and continue to apply. For information on confidentiality determinations for the GHGRP and subpart W data elements, see: 75 FR 39094, July 7, 2010; 76 FR 30782, May 26, 2011; 77 FR 48072, August 13, 2012; 79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014; 79 FR 70385, November 25, 2014; and 80 FR 64262, October 22, 2015. These proposed confidentiality determinations would be finalized after considering public comment. The EPA plans to finalize these determinations at the same time the proposed amendments described in this rulemaking are finalized.
We are applying the same approach as previously used for making confidentiality determinations for data elements reported under the GHGRP. In the “Confidentiality Determinations for Data Required Under the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Amendments to Special Rules Governing Certain Information Obtained Under the Clean Air Act” (hereafter referred to as “2011 Final CBI Rulemaking”) (76 FR 30782, May 26,
For this rulemaking, we are proposing to assign nine new or revised data elements to the appropriate direct emitter data categories created in the 2011 Final CBI Rulemaking based on the type and characteristics of each data element.
For the seven data elements that the EPA has assigned in this proposed rulemaking to a direct emitter category with a categorical determination (data elements (1) through (5), (8), and (9), as listed in section III.A of this preamble), the EPA is proposing that the categorical determination for the category be applied to the proposed new or revised data element. For the proposed categorical assignment of the data elements in the eight categories with categorical determinations, see the memorandum “Data Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations for All Data Elements in the Proposed `Leak Detection Methodology Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems' ” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0764.
For the two data elements assigned to “Unit/Process Operating Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations” (data elements (6) and (7), as listed in section III.A of this preamble), we are proposing confidentiality determinations on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration the criteria in 40 CFR 2.208, consistent with the approach used for data elements previously assigned to this data category. For the proposed categorical assignment of these data elements, see the memorandum “Data Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations for All Data Elements in the Proposed `Leak Detection Methodology Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems' ” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0764. For the results of our case-by-case evaluation of these data elements, see section III.C of this preamble.
The EPA is proposing to assign two proposed new or substantially revised data elements for subpart W to the “Unit/Process Operating Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations” data category because the proposed new or substantially revised data elements share the same characteristics as the other data elements previously assigned to the category in earlier EPA rulemakings (see 77 FR 48072, August 13, 2012; and 79 FR 70352, November 25, 2014). We are proposing confidentiality determinations for these proposed new or substantially revised data elements based on the approach set forth in the 2011 Final CBI Rulemaking for data elements assigned to this data category. In that rulemaking, the EPA determined categorically that data elements assigned to this data category do not meet the definition of emission data in 40 CFR 2.301(a); the EPA then made individual, instead of categorical, confidentiality determinations for these data elements. For more information on how the confidentiality determinations apply to specific industry segments, see the memorandum “Data Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations for All Data Elements in the Proposed `Leak Detection Methodology Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems' ” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0764.
As with all other data elements assigned to this data category, the proposed new or substantially revised data elements do not meet the definition of emissions data in 40 CFR 2.301(a). The EPA then considered the confidentiality criteria at 40 CFR 2.208 in making our proposed confidentiality determinations. Specifically, we focused on whether the data are already publicly available from other sources and, if not, whether disclosure of the data is likely to cause substantial harm to the business' competitive position. Table 3 of this preamble lists the data elements that the EPA proposes to assign to the “Unit/Process Operating Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission
For the CBI component of this rulemaking, we are specifically soliciting comment on the following issues. First, we specifically seek comment on the proposed data category assignments, and application of the established categorical confidentiality determinations to data elements assigned to categories with such determinations. If a commenter believes that the EPA has improperly assigned certain new or substantially revised data elements to any of the data categories established in the 2011 Final CBI Rulemaking, please provide specific comments identifying which of these data elements may be mis-assigned along with a detailed explanation of why you believe them to be incorrectly assigned and in which data category you believe they belong. In addition, if you believe that a data element should be assigned to one of the two direct emitter data categories that do not have a categorical confidentiality determination, please also provide specific comment along with detailed rationale and supporting information on whether such a data element does or does not qualify as CBI.
We also seek comment on the proposed individual confidentiality determinations for the two new or substantially revised data elements assigned to the “Unit/Process Operating Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations” data category.
By proposing confidentiality determinations prior to data reporting through this proposal and rulemaking process, we provide reporters an opportunity to submit comments, in particular comments identifying data they consider sensitive and their rationales and supporting documentation; this opportunity is the same opportunity that is afforded to submitters of information in case-by-case confidentiality determinations made in response to individual claims for confidential treatment not made through a rulemaking. It provides an opportunity to rebut the agency's proposed determinations prior to finalization. We will evaluate the comments on our proposed determinations, including claims of confidentiality and information substantiating such claims, before finalizing the confidentiality determinations. Please note that this will be a reporter's only opportunity to substantiate a confidentiality claim for the data elements identified in this rulemaking. Upon finalizing the confidentiality determinations of the data elements identified in this rulemaking, the EPA will release or withhold these data in accordance with 40 CFR 2.301, which contains special provisions governing the treatment of part 98 data for which confidentiality determinations have been made through rulemaking.
When submitting comments regarding the confidentiality determinations we are proposing in this rulemaking, please identify each individual data element you do or do not consider to be CBI or emission data in your comments. Please explain specifically how the public release of that particular data element would or would not cause a competitive disadvantage to a facility. Discuss how this data element may be different from or similar to data that are already publicly available. Please submit information identifying any publicly available sources of information containing the specific data elements in question. Data that are already available through other sources would likely be found not to qualify for CBI protection. In your comments, please identify the manner and location in which each specific data element you identify is publicly available, including a citation. If the data are physically published, such as in a book, industry trade publication, or federal agency
If your concern is that competitors could use a particular data element to discern sensitive information, specifically describe the pathway by which this could occur and explain how the discerned information would negatively affect your competitive position. Describe any unique process or aspect of your facility that would be revealed if the particular data element you consider sensitive were made publicly available. If the data element you identify would cause harm only when used in combination with other publicly available data, then describe the other data, identify the public source(s) of these data, and explain how the combination of data could be used to cause competitive harm. Describe the measures currently taken to keep the data confidential. Avoid conclusory and unsubstantiated statements, or general assertions regarding potential harm. Please be as specific as possible in your comments and include all information necessary for the EPA to evaluate your comments.
As discussed in section II of this preamble, the EPA is proposing amendments to subpart W that would add equipment leak monitoring methods and would revise recordkeeping and reporting requirements for reporters in the following industry segments: Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production, Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Gathering and Boosting, Onshore Natural Gas Processing, Onshore Natural Gas Transmission Compression, Underground Natural Gas Storage, LNG Storage, LNG Import and Export Equipment, and Natural Gas Distribution. Reporters in these industry segments would be required to use the results of fugitive emissions component monitoring required under the proposed NSPS subpart OOOOa or could voluntarily use the results of leak detection surveys that are conducted following a leak detection method listed in subpart W to determine the number of leaking components of a given type that are present at the facility. Facilities would use these results along with the proposed leaker emission factors to determine their emissions.
The proposed amendments to subpart W are not expected to significantly increase burden. We estimated that the additional costs to reporters in the Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production and the Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Gathering and Boosting industry segments to transition their existing equipment leak recordkeeping, calculating, and reporting systems to use the proposed leaker emission factor approach would be approximately $50,000 per year for all reporters, or about $200 per reporter. Reporters in the other industry segments in subpart W would only need to add a few new emission factors to their existing systems rather than transitioning their recordkeeping, calculating, and reporting systems, so we do not estimate any additional burden for these facilities. See the memorandum, “Assessment of Impacts of the Proposed Leak Detection Methodology Revisions to Subpart W” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0764 for additional information.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the 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 2300.19. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
This action proposes to increase burden related to recordkeeping and reporting requirements for reporters in two industry segments: Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production and Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Gathering and Boosting. The changes to recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the other industry segments in this proposed rulemaking are not expected to increase burden. Impacts associated with the proposed changes to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are detailed in the memorandum “Assessment of Impacts of the Proposed Leak Detection Methodology Revisions to Subpart W” (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0764).
Data collected must be made available to the public unless the data qualify for CBI treatment under the CAA and EPA regulations. All data determined by the EPA to be CBI are safeguarded in accordance with regulations in 40 CFR chapter 1, part 2, subpart B.
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 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 action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The small entities directly regulated by this proposed rule include small businesses in the petroleum and natural gas industry. The EPA has determined that some small businesses would be affected because their production processes emit GHGs exceeding the reporting threshold. This action includes 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. This action would impose no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. This regulation would apply directly to petroleum and natural gas facilities that emit greenhouses gases. Although few facilities that would be subject to the rule are likely to be owned by tribal governments, the EPA sought opportunities to provide information to tribal governments and representatives during the development of the proposed and final subpart W that was promulgated on November 30, 2010 (75 FR 74458).
The EPA consulted with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. A summary of that consultation is provided in section IV.F of the preamble to the re-proposal of subpart W published on April 12, 2010 (75 FR 18608), and section IV.F of the preamble to the subpart W 2010 final rule published on November 30, 2010 (75 FR 74458).
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks, that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action would not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because the amendments would not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. Instead, the proposed amendments address information collection and reporting and verification procedures.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(8) Equipment leaks from pumps that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa. You may also elect to report emissions from pumps if you survey them using a leak detection method described in § 98.234(a) and are not subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa.
(e) * * *
(8) Equipment leaks from all equipment leak component types, except those listed in paragraph (e)(7) of this section, that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa. You may also elect to report emissions from these equipment leak component types if you survey them using a leak detection method described in § 98.234(a) and are not subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa.
(f) * * *
(5) Equipment leaks from valves, connectors, open ended lines, pressure relief valves, and meters associated with storage stations.
(6) Equipment leaks from all equipment leak component types associated with storage stations, except those listed in paragraph (f)(5) of this section, that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa. You may also elect to report emissions from these equipment leak component types if you survey them using a leak detection method described in § 98.234(a) and are not subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa.
(7) Equipment leaks from valves, connectors, open-ended lines, and pressure relief valves associated with storage wellheads.
(8) Equipment leaks from all equipment leak component types associated with storage wellheads, except those listed in paragraph (f)(7) of this section, that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa. You may also elect to report emissions from these equipment leak component types if you survey them using a leak detection
(g) * * *
(3) Flare stack emissions.
(4) Equipment leaks from valves, pump seals, connectors, and other equipment leak sources in LNG service.
(5) Equipment leaks from vapor recovery compressors that are not subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa.
(6) Equipment leaks from all equipment leak component types in gas service that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa. You may also elect to report emissions from these equipment leak component types if you survey them using a leak detection method described in § 98.234(a) and are not subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa.
(h) * * *
(4) Flare stack emissions.
(5) Equipment leaks from valves, pump seals, connectors, and other equipment leak sources in LNG service.
(6) Equipment leaks from vapor recovery compressors that are not subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa.
(7) Equipment leaks from all equipment leak component types in gas service that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa. You may also elect to report emissions from these equipment leak component types if you survey them using a leak detection method described in § 98.234(a) and are not subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa.
(q)
(ii) Except as specified in paragraph (q)(1)(iv) of this section, equipment component types in § 98.232(c)(21), (d)(8), (e)(8), (f)(6), (f)(7), (f)(8), (g)(6), (h)(7), and (j)(10) that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa are subject to the equipment leak emissions calculation procedures in paragraph (q)(2) of this section.
(iii) Except as specified in paragraph (q)(1)(iv) of this section, you may elect to comply with this paragraph (q) (
(iv) This paragraph (q) applies to component types in streams with gas content greater than 10 percent CH
(2)
(i) You must conduct either one leak detection survey in a calendar year or multiple complete leak detection surveys in a calendar year. The leak detection surveys selected must be conducted during the calendar year.
(ii) Calculate both CO
(iii) Onshore petroleum and natural gas production facilities must use the appropriate default whole gas leaker emission factors for components in gas service, light crude service, and heavy crude service listed in Table W-1E of this subpart.
(iv) Onshore petroleum and natural gas gathering and boosting facilities must use the appropriate default whole gas leaker factors for components in gas service listed in Table W-1E of this subpart.
(v) Onshore natural gas processing facilities must use the appropriate default total hydrocarbon leaker emission factors for compressor components in gas service and non-compressor components in gas service listed in Table W-2 of this subpart.
(vi) Onshore natural gas transmission compression facilities must use the appropriate default total hydrocarbon leaker emission factors for compressor components in gas service and non-compressor components in gas service listed in Table W-3 of this subpart.
(vii) Underground natural gas storage facilities must use the appropriate default total hydrocarbon leaker emission factors for storage stations in gas service listed in Table W-4 of this subpart.
(viii) LNG storage facilities must use the appropriate default methane leaker emission factors for LNG storage components in gas service listed in Table W-5 of this subpart.
(ix) LNG import and export facilities must use the appropriate default methane leaker emission factors for LNG terminals components in LNG service listed in Table W-6 of this subpart.
(x) Natural gas distribution facilities must use Equation W-30 of this section and the default methane leaker emission factors for transmission-distribution transfer station components in gas service listed in Table W-7 of this subpart to calculate component emissions from annual equipment leak surveys conducted at above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations. Natural gas distribution facilities are required to perform equipment leak surveys only at above grade stations that qualify as transmission-distribution transfer stations. Below grade transmission-distribution transfer stations and all metering-regulating stations that do not meet the definition of transmission-distribution transfer stations are not required to perform equipment leak surveys under this section.
(A) Natural gas distribution facilities may choose to conduct equipment leak surveys at all above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations over multiple years “n”, not exceeding a five year period to cover all above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations. If the facility chooses to use the multiple year option, then the number of transmission-distribution transfer stations that are monitored in each year should be approximately equal across all years in the cycle.
(B) Use Equation W-31 of this section to determine the meter/regulator run population emission factors for each GHG
(C) The emission factor “EF
(xi) If you chose to conduct equipment leak surveys at all above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations over multiple years, “n,” according to paragraph (q)(2)(x)(A) of this section, you must use the meter/regulator run population emission
(r) * * * This paragraph (r) applies to emissions sources listed in § 98.232(c)(21), (f)(7), (g)(5), (h)(6), and (j)(10) that are not subject to the requirements in paragraph (q) of this section, and it applies to emission sources listed in § 98.232(i)(2), (i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), (i)(6), and (j)(11). To be subject to the requirements of this paragraph (r), the listed emissions sources also must contact streams with gas content greater than 10 percent CH
(a) You must use any of the methods described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section to conduct leak detection(s) of through-valve leakage from all source types listed in § 98.233(k), (o), and (p) that occur during a calendar year. You must use any of the methods described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section to conduct leak detection(s) of equipment leaks from component types listed in § 98.233(q)(1)(i) and (iii) that occur during a calendar year. To conduct leak detection(s) of equipment leaks from component types listed in § 98.233(q)(1)(ii), you must use the method described in paragraph (a)(6) of this section.
(1)
(6)
(i) For the purposes of this subpart, any fugitive emission from a fugitive emissions component, as defined in 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa, that is detected by the optical gas imaging instrument is a leak.
(ii) For the purposes of this subpart, the term “fugitive emissions component” in § 60.5397a(b) through (i) of this chapter means “equipment leak component.”
(iii) For the purpose of complying with § 98.233(q)(1)(iii), the phrases “the collection of fugitive emissions components at well sites and compressor stations” and “each collection of fugitive emissions components at a well site and each collection of fugitive emissions components at a compressor station” in § 60.5397a(b) and (g) of this chapter mean “the collection of equipment leak components for which you elect to comply with § 98.233(q)(1)(iii).”
(iv) The requirements in § 60.5397a(c)(4) and (5) of this chapter to include procedures and timelines for repair in your monitoring plan do not apply to equipment leak components for which you elect to comply with § 98.233(q)(1)(iii).
(v) For the purpose of complying with § 98.233(q)(1)(iii), the reference in § 60.5397a(g) to “the initial survey” does not apply.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(xiv)
(9) * * *
(x)
(q) * * *
(1) You must report the information specified in paragraphs (q)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
(iii) Indicate whether any equipment leak component types were subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa.
(iv) Indicate whether you elected to comply with § 98.233(q)(1)(iii).
(v) Report each type of method described in § 98.234(a) that was used to conduct leak surveys.
(2) You must indicate whether your facility contains any of the component types subject to § 98.233(q) that are listed in § 98.232(c)(21), (d)(7), (d)(8), (e)(7), (e)(8), (f)(5), (f)(6), (f)(7), (f)(8), (g)(4), (g)(5), (g)(6), (h)(5), (h)(6), (h)(7), (j)(10), or (i)(1), for your facility's industry segment. * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
During a review of Arkansas' regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified a variety of State-initiated changes to Arkansas' hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, for which the State had not previously sought authorization. EPA proposes to authorize the State for the program changes. In addition, EPA proposes to codify in the regulations entitled “Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs”, Arkansas' authorized hazardous waste program. The EPA will incorporate by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) those provisions of the State regulations that are authorized and that EPA will enforce under RCRA.
Send written comments by February 29, 2016.
Submit any comments identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2015-0661 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Alima Patterson at (214) 665-8533 or Julia Banks at (214) 665-8178, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, (214) 665-8533) and Email address
In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
The purpose of this
This document incorporates by reference Arkansas' hazardous waste statutes and regulations and clarifies which of these provisions are included in the authorized and federally enforceable program. By codifying Arkansas' authorized program and by amending the Code of Federal Regulations, the public will be more easily able to discern the status of federally approved requirements of the Arkansas hazardous waste management program.
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Proposed rule.
GSA is proposing to amend the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) by updating the exemptions for mandatory use of the Government contractor-issued travel charge card to ensure the card is used as often as practicable.
Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat at one of the addresses shown below on or before March 29, 2016 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Submit comments identified by FTR Case 2015-303 by any of the following methods:
•
•
For clarification of content, contact Mr. Cy Greenidge, Program Analyst, Office of Government-wide Policy, at 202-219-2349. Contact the Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, 202-501-4755, for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. Please cite FTR Case 2015-303.
The FTR currently lists official travel expenses and classes of employees that are exempt from the mandatory use of the Government contractor-issued travel charge card. See FTR sections 301-51.2 and 301-70.704. GSA has determined that these exemptions should be updated in order for agencies to maximize travel charge card rebates. This proposed rule emphasizes the need for agencies to maximize travel charge card rebates by increasing the use of the travel charge card. Additionally, this proposed rule updates the list of exemptions to the mandatory use of the Government contractor-issued travel charge card, with the goal being to increase the issuance and appropriate use of travel charge cards for employees on official travel.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, and therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.
This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the FTR do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
This proposed rule is also exempt from Congressional review prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
Administrative practices and procedures, Government employees, Travel and transportation expenses.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5701-5711, GSA proposes to amend 41 CFR parts—301-51 and 301-70 as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 5707.
Expenses for which payment through a travel charge card is impractical
The Administrator of General Services exempts the following classes of employees from mandatory use of the Government contractor-issued travel charge card:
(a) Any employee who has an application pending for the Government contractor-issued travel charge card;
(b) Any employee, when issuance of the Government contractor-issued travel charge card would adversely affect the mission or put the employee at risk; and
(c) Any employee who is not eligible to receive a Government contractor-issued travel charge card.
5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); Sec. 2, Pub. L. 105-264, 112 Stat. 2350 (5 U.S.C. 5701, note), OMB Circular No. A-126, revised May 22, 1992, and OMB Circular No. A-123, Appendix B, revised January 15, 2009.
(d) It is not in the interest of the Government to do so, or when payment through a travel charge card is impractical or imposes unreasonable burdens or costs on Federal employees.
(b) The head of a Federal agency or his/her designee(s) may exempt any payment, person, type or class of payments, or type or class of agency personnel when use of the travel charge card is impracticable or imposes unreasonable burdens or costs.
(1) Agencies must manage their travel charge card programs to alleviate risks associated with issuing a travel charge card, where appropriate. If an employee is deemed eligible for a Government contractor-issued travel charge card and is expected to travel, the card must be issued and activated within 60 days of the travel charge card eligibility date, as determined by the agency.
(2) Agencies should include information in their travel charge cardholder training to inform travelers of the statutory requirement to use the travel charge card and the benefits to the agency, as well as to the traveler, of its use. Such agency benefits include earning rebates that can be reinvested in mission delivery, as well as being able to readily identify the locations to which employees are traveling, which can be used to help determine the budgetary impact of lodging per diem rates. Some examples of benefits to the traveler are no interest charges, longer payment terms, no reliance on personal funds/personal credit cards, and the convenience of direct/split disbursement payment.
The Administrator of General Services exempts the following classes of employees from mandatory use of the Government contractor-issued travel charge card:
(a) Any employee who has an application pending for the Government contractor-issued travel charge card;
(b) Any employee, when issuance of the Government contractor-issued travel charge card would adversely affect the mission or put the employee at risk; and
(c) Any employee who is not eligible to receive a Government contractor-issued travel charge card.
Committee for Purchase from People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to the procurement list.
The Committee is proposing to add services to the Procurement List that will be provided by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to provide the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following services are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
Committee for Purchase From People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Deletions from the Procurement List.
This action deletes products from the Procurement List that were previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 12/18/2015 (80 FR 79031-79032), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. §§ 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. §§ 8501-8506) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission” or “CPSC”) announces that the Commission has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of approval of a collection of information for Third Party Testing of Children's Products, approved previously under OMB Control No. 3041-0159. In the
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by February 29, 2016.
Submit comments about this request by email:
Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to:
CPSC's
•
•
The testing rule establishes requirements for manufacturers to conduct initial third party testing and certification of children's products, testing when there has been a material change in the product, continuing testing (periodic testing), and guarding against undue influence. A final rule on
The component part rule is a companion to the testing rule that is intended to reduce third party testing burdens by providing all parties involved in the required testing and certifying of children's products the flexibility to conduct or rely upon testing where it is the easiest and least expensive. Certification of a children's product can be based upon one or more of the following: (a) Component part testing; (b) component part certification; (c) another party's finished product testing; or (d) another party's finished product certification.
Records required by the testing rule and the rule on selecting representative samples appear in 16 CFR 1107.26. Required records include a certificate, and records documenting third party testing and related sampling plans. These requirements largely overlap the recordkeeping requirements in the component part rule, codified at 16 CFR 1109.5(g). Duplicate recordkeeping is not required; records need to be created and maintained only once to meet the applicable recordkeeping requirements. The component part rule also requires records that enable tracing a product or component back to the entity that had a product tested for compliance, and also requires attestations of due care to ensure test result integrity.
• Each product and the shipping container must have a permanent label or marking that identifies the name and address (city, state, and zip code) of the manufacturer, distributor, or seller.
• A permanent code mark or other product identification shall be provided on the infant carrier and its package or shipping container, if multiple packaging is used. The code will identify the date (month and year) of manufacture and permit future identification of any given model.
Each standard also requires products to include easy-to-read and understand instructions regarding assembly, maintenance, cleaning, use, and adjustments, where applicable.
OMB has assigned control numbers for the estimated burden to comply with marking and labeling requirements in each section 104 rule. With this renewal, CPSC is moving the marking and labeling burden requirements for section 104 rules into the collection of information for Third Party Testing of Children's Products. The paperwork burdens associated with the section 104 rules are appropriately included in the collection for Third Party Testing of Children's Products because all of the section 104 products are also required to be third party tested. Having all of the burden hours under one collection for children's products provides one OMB control number and eases the administrative burden of renewing multiple collections. CPSC will discontinue using the OMB control numbers currently assigned to individual section 104 rules. The discontinued OMB control numbers are listed in Table 1.
Because we do not know how many companies participate in component part testing and supply test reports or certifications to other certifiers in the supply chain, we have no concrete data to estimate the recordkeeping and third party disclosure requirements in the component part rule. Likewise, no clear method exists for estimating the number of finished product certifiers who conduct their own component part testing. In the component part rulemaking, we suggested that the recordkeeping burden for the component part testing rule could amount to 10 percent of the burden estimated for the testing and labeling rule. 76 FR 69546, 69579 (Nov. 8, 2011). Currently, we have no basis to change this estimate.
In addition to recordkeeping, the component part rule requires third party disclosure of test reports and certificates, if any, to a certifier who intends to rely on such documents to issue its own certificate. Without data, allocation of burden estimation between the recordkeeping and third party disclosure requirements is difficult. However, based on our previous analysis, we continue to estimate that creating and maintaining records accounts for approximately 90 percent of the burden, while the third party disclosure burden is much less, perhaps approximately 10 percent. Therefore, if we continue to use the estimate that component part testing will amount to about 10 percent of the burden estimated for the testing rule, then the hour burden of the component part rule is estimated to be about 540,000 hours total annually (10% of 5.4 million hours); allocating 486,000 hours for recordkeeping and 54,000 hours for third party disclosure.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 29, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Health Agency Uniform Business Office, Defense Health Headquarters, 7700 Arlington Blvd., Falls Church, Virginia 22042, ATTN: DeLisa E. Prater, Program Manager, 703-681-3492. ext. 6757 (DSN 761).
The administration has placed an increased emphasis upon recovery of health care expenses under the TPCP, as authorized by 10 U.S.C. 1095 and 1097b, and also from civilians and other federal agencies as authorized by 10 U.S.C. 1079b and 1085. Completion of this form, while increasing total burden hours, will aid in increasing revenue to improve services, operating efficiency and effectiveness within the Military Health System. Funds collected return directly to the operation and maintenance budget of the MTF where the care was delivered and are used to improve the quality of healthcare. Often the funds allow the continuation of programs or purchasing of equipment at the facilities for which there would otherwise not be funding. This information is collected either during the admission and/or discharge process for an inpatient stay or during the registration process for an outpatient visit or as soon as practical thereafter.
Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), Filed 01/18/2016 Through 01/22/2016, Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by March 29, 2016.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
The State must conduct RetroDUR which provides for the ongoing periodic examination of claims data and other records in order to identify patterns of fraud, abuse, inappropriate or medically unnecessary care. Patterns or trends of drug therapy problems are identified and reviewed to determine the need for intervention activity with pharmacists and/or physicians. States may conduct interventions via telephone, correspondence, or face-to-face contact.
Annual reports are submitted to CMS for the purposes of monitoring compliance and evaluating the progress of States' DUR programs. The information submitted by States is reviewed and results are compiled by CMS in a format intended to provide information, comparisons and trends related to States' experiences with DUR. The States benefit from the information and may enhance their programs each year based on State reported innovative practices that are compiled by CMS from the DUR annual reports.
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 February 29, 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.
Data submission, processing, and reporting will be analyzed for potential errors, inconsistencies, and gaps that are related to data handling, program requirements, and clinical quality measure specifications of PQRS and eRx program. Surveys of Group Practices, Registries, and Data Submission Vendors (DSVs) will be conducted in order to evaluate the PQRS and eRx Incentive Program. Follow-up interviews will occur with a small number of respondents.
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.
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.
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.
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.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until February 29, 2016. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha L. Deshommes, Acting Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number 202-272-8377 (this is not a toll-free number). Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) 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;
(2) 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;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of submission to OMB.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for approval for the collection of information for Tribal Self-Governance Program authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0143. This information collection expires January 31, 2016.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 29, 2016.
You may submit comments on the information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at the Office of Management and Budget, by facsimile to (202) 395-5806 or you may send an email to:
Sharee Freeman, (202) 219-0240. You may review the information collection request online at
The Office of Self-Governance is seeking renewal of the approval for information collection Tribal Self-Governance Program, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collected will be used to establish requirements for entry into the pool of qualified applicants for Self-Governance and to meet reporting requirements of the Tribal Self-Governance Act.
On October 27, 2015, BIA published a notice announcing the renewal of this information collection and provided a 60-day comment period in the
The BIA requests your comments on this collection concerning: (1) The necessity of this information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents.
Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it has a valid OMB Control Number.
It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the current list of 566 Tribal entities recognized and eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by virtue of their status as Indian Tribes. The list is updated from
Laurel Iron Cloud, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Tribal Government Services, Mail Stop 4513-MIB, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240. Telephone number: (202) 513-7641.
This notice is published pursuant to Section 104 of the Act of November 2, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-454; 108 Stat. 4791, 4792), and in exercise of authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs under 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9 and 209 DM 8.
Published below is a list of federally acknowledged Tribes in the contiguous 48 states and Alaska.
Amendments to the list include name changes and name corrections. To aid in identifying Tribal name changes and corrections, the Tribe's previously listed or former name is included in parentheses after the correct current Tribal name. We will continue to list the Tribe's former or previously listed name for several years before dropping the former or previously listed name from the list.
The listed Indian entities are acknowledged to have the immunities and privileges available to federally recognized Indian Tribes by virtue of their government-to-government relationship with the United States as well as the responsibilities, powers, limitations, and obligations of such Tribes. We have continued the practice of listing the Alaska Native entities separately solely for the purpose of facilitating identification of them and reference to them given the large number of complex Native names.
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review, will be submitting 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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 29, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Jean King, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice, Suite 2600, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22041; telephone: (703) 305-0470.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, 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;
—Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
—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,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
The National Science Board, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of meetings for the transaction of National Science Board business as follows:
February 2, 2016 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:10 p.m., and February 3, 2016 from 8:50 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. EST.
These meetings will be held at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1235, Arlington, VA 22230. All visitors must contact the Board Office (call 703-292-7000 or send an email to
Public meetings and public portions of meetings will be webcast. To view the meetings, go to
Please refer to the National Science Board Web site for additional information. Meeting information and schedule updates (time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) may be found at
Ron Campbell,
Nadine Lymn,
Portions open; portions closed.
Tuesday, February 9, 2016, at 12:00 noon.
via Teleconference.
Closed.
The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting may be closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Requests for information about the meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, Julie S. Moore, at 202-268-4800.
On October 9, 2015, 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”)
NYSE proposes to adopt NYSE Rule 67(a), (c), (d), and (e)
Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(2) provides that the Exchange is a Participant
Proposed NYSE Rule 67(a)(5) defines the procedure for dealing with Pilot Securities that drop below $1.00 during the Pilot Period. If the price of a Pilot Security drops below $1.00 during regular trading but does not have a Closing Price below $1.00, the Pilot Security will continue to trade according to the quoting and trading requirements of its originally assigned Test Group in the Plan. If a Pilot Security has a Closing Price below $1.00, the Pilot Security would be moved from its respective Test Group into the Control Group, and would be quoted and traded at any price increment that is currently permitted by Exchange rules for the remainder of the Pilot Period.
Proposed NYSE Rule 67(c) describes the quoting and trading requirements of Pilot Securities in Test Group One. Specifically, NYSE proposes that no member may display, rank, or accept from any person any displayable or non-displayable bids or offers, orders, or indications of interest in increments other than $0.05 for Pilot Securities in Test Group One.
Proposed NYSE Rule 67(d) describes the quoting and trading requirements of Pilot Securities in Test Group Two. Specifically, NYSE proposes that no member may display, rank, or accept from any person any displayable or non-displayable bids or offers, orders, or indications of interest in increments other than $0.05 for Pilot Securities in Test Group Two.
Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e) describes the quoting and trading requirements of Pilot Securities in Test Group Three. NYSE proposes for Pilot Securities in Test Group Three no member organization may display, rank, or accept from any person any displayable or non-displayable bids or offers, orders, or indications of interest in increments other than $0.05.
Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4) states the Test Group Three Pilot Securities will be subject to a Trade-at Prohibition. Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(A) defines “Trade-At Prohibition” as the prohibition against executions by a Trading Center of a sell order for a Pilot Security at the Price of a Protected Bid or the execution of a buy order at the price of a Protected Offer during regular trading hours.
Proposed NYSE Rule 67(e)(4)(C) provides that a member organization may execute a sell order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Bid or a buy order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Offer under the following 14 circumstances. First, an order may be executed by a Trading Center within a member organization that has a displayed quotation for the account of that Trading Center on a principal basis, via either a processor or an SRO Quotation Feed, at a price equal to the traded-at Protected Quotation, that was displayed before the order was received, but only up to the full displayed size of the Trading Center's previously displayed quote.
The second exception permits the execution of an order that consists of odd lot orders and odd lot portions of partial round lot orders that are displayed on the SRO Quotation Feed at the price equal to the traded-at Protected Quotation, up to the size of the displayed quotation.
The fourth exception permits the execution of a Retail Investor Order
The ninth exception permits the execution of an order that is identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order.
The thirteenth exception permits the execution of an order by a Trading Center, which at the time of order receipt, had guaranteed an execution at no worse than a specified price (a “stopped order”) where: (1) The stopped order was for the account of a customer; (2) the customer agreed to the specified price on an order-by-order basis; and (3) the price of the Trade-at transaction was, for a stopped buy order, equal to the National Best Bid in the Pilot Security at the time of execution or, for a stopped sell order, equal to the National Best Offer in the Pilot Security at the time of execution.
The Commission has received two comment letters on the proposed rule change and a response from the Exchange. One commenter expressed concern with the differences between the NYSE proposal and the rules to comply with the quoting and trading requirements of the Plan proposed in the FINRA/BATS Proposals,
The other commenter also expressed concern with the proposal's limitation of the exception to the Trade-at Prohibition discussed above to principal quotations, and with the certain defined terms, such as “Retail Investor Order” and “Block Size”.
In its Response Letter, the Exchange expressed the view that its proposal is consistent with the goals of the Plan, including testing whether market participants are incentivized to display more liquidity in a wider tick environment. On the other hand, in the Exchange's opinion, the FINRA/BATS Proposals would create an incentive for trading in Test Group Three to migrate to dark venues, which would be inconsistent with the goals of the Plan. Specifically, the Exchange expressed the view that the FINRA/BATS Proposals would allow an alternative trading system (“ATS”) to execute matched trades of any of its participants at the price of a Traded-at Protected Quotation if the ATS is displaying, on an agency basis, a quotation of another participant at the Protected Quotation. Thus, the Exchange reasoned that the FINRA/BATS Proposals would allow trades by ATS participants at the price of a Protected Quotation without requiring them to display a Protected Quotation, but instead “free-ride” on the Protected Quotation of another participant in the ATS that is displayed, on an agency basis by the ATS. This would, in the opinion of the Exchange, “eviscerate” the requirement for dark pools to trade with Protected Quotations, and be contrary to the Commission's intent for the Trade-At Prohibition to test whether market participants are incentivized to display more liquidity in a wider tick environment.
The Exchange confirmed one commenter's understanding with respect to the Retail Investor Order exception and that the exception would allow for over-the-counter trading. Additionally, the Exchange stated that it opposed changing the Block Size exception as the Exchange does not believe that a trading center should be permitted to facilitate a block cross that aggregates multiple smaller orders, even if one component of the block meets the definition of Block Size Order.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal would establish rules for NYSE member organizations to comply with the quoting and trading requirements of the Tick Size Pilot. NYSE proposes to adopt a version of the Trade-at Prohibition that would be more restrictive than required by the Plan, the applicable provisions of which would permit a Trading Center to execute an order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three if that Trading Center “is displaying a quotation, via either a processor or an SRO quotation feed, at a price equal to the traded-at protected quotation but only up to the trading center's full displayed size.”
The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above as well as other relevant concerns. Such comments should be submitted by February 19, 2016. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by March 4, 2016. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the proposed rule change, 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.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-46. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Central Midland Railway Company (CMR),
In the verified notice, CMR states that CMR and UP have executed a Lease Agreement
CMR certifies that the projected annual revenues as a result of the proposed transaction will not result in CMR's becoming a Class II or Class I rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million.
CMR intends to consummate the transaction on or shortly after February 14, 2016, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice of exemption was filed). If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35989, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on applicant's representative, Audrey L. Brodrick, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606.
According to CMR, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before February 29, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimates, or any other aspect of the information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained by emailing
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before February 29, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission may be obtained by emailing
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice of amendment of system of records.
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)), notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending the system of records entitled “Ethics Consultation Web-based Database (ECWeb)-VA” (152VA10E) as set forth in 76 FR 43386. VA is amending the system of records by revising the System Number, Categories of Individuals Covered by the System, Category of Records in the System, Purpose, Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System, Safeguards, Retention and Disposal, and System Manager and Address. VA is republishing the system notice in its entirety.
Comments on this new system of records must be received no later than February 29, 2016. If no public comment is received during the period allowed for comment or unless otherwise published in the
Written comments concerning the amended system of records may be submitted through
Kenneth Berkowitz, MD, Acting Executive Director, National Center for Ethics in Health Care (10P6), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420; telephone (202) 501-0364.
The system number is changed from 152VA10E to 152VA10P6 to reflect the current organizational alignment.
The Category of Individuals Covered by the System is being amended to remove beneficiaries of other Federal agencies and replace it with other requesters or participants from outside VA for whom personal information will be collected.
The Category of Records in the System is being amended to add that the ECWeb record documents the consultation request, relevant consultation specific information, a summary of the information including the ethical analysis and moral deliberation, the explanation of the findings to relevant parties and support of the consultation process. The ECWeb record also includes related notes and attachments.
The Purpose in this system of records is being amended to include education, but will remove law enforcement investigations.
Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System being deleted are:
2. Disclosure of health care information furnished and the period of care, as deemed necessary and proper, to accredited service organization representatives and other approved agents, attorneys, and insurance companies to aid claimants whom they represent in the preparation, presentation and prosecution of claims under laws administered by VA, state or local agencies.
3. VA may disclose on its own initiative any information in this system, except the names and home addresses of Veterans and their dependents, which is relevant to a suspected or reasonably imminent violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, to a Federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order. On its own initiative, VA may also disclose the names and addresses of Veterans and their dependents to a Federal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto.
5. Relevant information may be disclosed in the course of presenting evidence to a court, magistrate or administrative tribunal, in matters of guardianship, inquests and commitments; to private attorneys representing Veterans rated incompetent in conjunction with issuance of Certificates of Incompetency; and to probation and parole officers in connection with Court required duties.
15. For program review purposes and the seeking of accreditation and/or certification, health care information may be disclosed to survey teams of The Joint Commission (TJC), and similar national accrediting agencies or boards with whom VA has a contract or agreement to conduct such reviews, but only to the extent that the information is necessary and relevant to the review.
18. Patient identifying information may be disclosed to Federal agencies and VA and government-wide third party insurers responsible for payment of the cost of medical care for the identified patients, in order for VA to seek recovery of the medical care costs. These records may also be disclosed as part of a computer matching program to accomplish these purposes.
19. Relevant health care information may be disclosed to health and welfare agencies, housing resources and utility companies, possibly to be combined with disclosures to other agencies, in situations where VA needs to act quickly in order to provide basic and/or emergency needs for the Veteran and Veteran's family where the family resides with the Veteran or serves as a caregiver.
All of the Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System are renumbered due to the deletions to allow for sequential numbers. Routine use 29 which stated: Assist in quality improvement efforts with respect to ethics consultation practices as part of approved research or ongoing quality improvement projects is now routine use 21 which is being clarified to state that disclosure of ethics consultation records to groups (
Safeguards number 3 is being amended to remove access to the Austin VA Data Processing Center is generally restricted to Center employees, custodial personnel, Federal Protective Service and other security personnel.
The Retention and Disposal is being amended to remove in accordance with the records is deposition authority approved by the Archivist of the United States, paper records and information stored on electronic storage media are maintained for 75 years after the last episode of patient care then destroyed/deleted. This section will now state that records that are stored within Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) and Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) will be maintained in accordance with Record Control Schedule (RCS) 10-1 Item # XLIII-2, Electronic Health Records, NARA job# N1-15-02-3. All other records maintained outside the Electronic Health Record will be maintained in accordance with General Records Schedule (GRS) 25 Ethics Program Records Item 1.a and 1.b (N1-GRS-01-1 item 1a & 1b).
The System Manager and Address is amending the official responsible for policies and procedures from the Chief
The notice of amendment and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate Congressional committees and to the Director of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB (65 FR 77677), December 12, 2000.
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 L. Nabors II, Chief of Staff, approved this document on January 12, 2016, for publication.
Ethics Consultation Web-based Database (ECWeb)-VA
Automated records within the Ethics Consultation Web-based Database (ECWeb) may be maintained on a VA-owned server administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
The records include information concerning.
1. Veterans who have applied for health care services under Title 38, U.S.C., Chapter 17, and members of their immediate families.
2. Spouse, surviving spouse, and children of Veterans who have applied for health care services under Title 38, U.S.C., Chapter 17.
3. Other requesters or participants from outside VA for whom personal information will be collected.
4. Individuals examined or treated under contract or resource sharing agreements.
5. Individuals examined or treated for research or donor purposes.
6. Individuals who have applied for Title 38 benefits, but who do not meet the requirements under Title 38 to receive such benefits.
7. Individuals who were provided medical care under emergency conditions for humanitarian reasons.
8. Pensioned members of allied forces provided health care services under Title 38, U.S.C., Chapter I.
9. Current and former employees.
10. Contractors employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The ECWeb record documents the consultation request, relevant consultation specific information, a summary of the information including the ethical analysis and moral deliberation, the explanation of the findings to relevant parties and support of the consultation process. The ECWeb record also includes related notes and attachments.
The records may include information related to ethics consultations performed in and for VHA medical treatment facilities. Information may include relevant information from a health record (a cumulative account of sociological, diagnostic, counseling, rehabilitation, drug and alcohol, dietetic, medical, surgical, dental, psychological, and/or psychiatric information compiled by VA professional staff and non-VA health care providers); subsidiary record information (
Title 38, U.S.C., 501(b), 304, 7301, and 7304(a).
The automated records may be used for such purposes as: Ethics consultation concerning education; ongoing treatment of the patient; documentation of treatment provided; payment; health care operations such as producing various management and patient follow-up reports; responding to patient and other inquiries; for epidemiological research and other health care related studies; statistical analysis, resource allocation and planning; providing clinical and administrative support to patient health care; audits, reviews and investigations conducted by staff of the health care facility, the VISN's, VA Central Office, and the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG); sharing of health information between and among Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Defense (DoD), Indian Health Services (IHS), and other government and private industry health care organizations; quality improvement/assurance audits, reviews and investigations; personnel management and evaluation; employee ratings and performance evaluations, and employee disciplinary or other adverse action, including removal; advising health care professional licensing or monitoring bodies or similar entities of activities of VA and former VA health care personnel; and, accreditation of a VA health care facility by an entity such as TJC.
To the extent that records contained in the system include information protected by 38 U.S.C. 7332,
1. Disclosure of health care information as deemed necessary and proper to Federal, state and local government agencies and national health organizations in order to assist in the development of programs that will be beneficial to claimants, to protect their rights under law, and assure that they are receiving all benefits to which they are entitled.
2. Disclosure of individually identifiable health care information may be made by appropriate VA personnel to the extent necessary and on a need-to-know basis, consistent with good medical and ethical practices, to family members and/or the person(s) with whom the patient has a meaningful relationship.
3. Relevant information may be disclosed to a guardian ad litem in relation to his or her representation of a claimant in any legal proceeding.
4. Relevant information may be disclosed to attorneys, insurance companies, employers, third parties liable or potentially liable under health plan contracts, and to courts, boards, or commissions, only to the extent necessary to aid VA in preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims authorized under Federal, state, or local laws, and regulations promulgated thereunder.
5. Disclosure of health information, excluding name and home address, (unless name and address is furnished by the requester) for research purposes determined to be necessary and proper, to epidemiological and other research entities approved by the Under Secretary for Health.
6. Relevant information may be disclosed to the Department of Justice and United States Attorneys in defense or prosecution of litigation involving the United States, and to Federal agencies upon their request in connection with review of administrative tort claims filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2672.
7. Relevant health care information concerning a non-judicially declared incompetent patient may be disclosed to a third party upon the written authorization of the patient's next of kin in order for the patient or, consistent with the best interest of the patient, a member of the patient's family, to receive a benefit to which the patient or family member is entitled or, to arrange for the patient's discharge from a VA medical facility. Sufficient information to make an informed determination will be made available to such next of kin. If the patient's next of kin are not reasonably accessible, the Chief of Staff, Director, or designee of the custodial VA health care facility may make disclosure of health care information for these purposes.
8. Relevant health care information may be disclosed to a non-VA nursing home facility that is considering the patient for admission, when information concerning the individual's medical care is needed for the purpose of preadmission screening under 42 CFR 483.20(f), for the purpose of identifying patients who are mentally ill or mentally retarded, so they can be evaluated for appropriate placement.
9. Relevant health care information may be disclosed to a State Veterans Home for the purpose of medical treatment and/or follow-up at the State Home when VA makes payment of a per diem rate to the State Home for the patient receiving care at such home, and the patient receives VA medical care.
10. Relevant health care information may be disclosed to (a) A Federal agency or non-VA health care provider or institution when VA refers a patient for hospital or nursing home care or medical services, or authorizes a patient to obtain non-VA medical services and the information is needed by the Federal agency or non-VA institution or provider to perform the services; or (b) a Federal agency or a non-VA hospital (Federal, state and local, public or private) or other medical installation having hospital facilities, blood banks, or similar institutions, medical schools or clinics, or other groups or individuals that have contracted or agreed to provide medical services, or share the use of medical resources under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 513, 7409, 8111, or 8153, when treatment is rendered by VA under the terms of such contract or agreement or the issuance of an authorization, and the information is needed for purposes of medical treatment and/or follow-up, determining entitlement to a benefit or, for VA to effect recovery of the costs of the medical care.
11. Information from an ECWeb record which relates to the performance of a health care student or provider may be disclosed to a medical or nursing school, or other health care related training institution, or other facility with which there is an affiliation, sharing agreement, contract, or similar arrangement when the student or provider is enrolled at or employed by the school or training institution, or other facility, and the information is needed for personnel management, rating and/or evaluation purposes.
12. Relevant health care information may be disclosed to individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, etc., with whom VA has a contract or sharing agreement for the provision of health care or administrative services.
13. The record of an individual who is covered by a system of records may be disclosed to a Member of Congress, or a staff person acting for the Member, when the Member of staff person requests the record on behalf of and at the written request of the individual.
14. Disclosure may be made to the National Archives and Records Administration in records management inspections conducted under authority of Title 44 U.S.C.
15. VA may disclose information from this system of records to the Department of Justice (DoJ), either on VA's initiative or in response to DoJ's request for the information, after either VA or DoJ determines that such information is relevant to DoJ's representation of the United States or any of its components in legal proceedings before a court or adjudicative body, provided that, in each case, the agency also determines prior to disclosure that release of the records to the DoJ is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected records. VA, on its own initiative, may disclose records in this system of records in legal proceedings before a court or administrative body after determining that the disclosure of the records to the court or administrative body is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records.
16. VA may disclose on its own initiative any information in the system, except the names and home addresses of Veterans and their dependents, that is relevant to a suspected or reasonably imminent violation of the law whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, to a Federal, state, local, tribal or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order. VA may also disclose on its own initiative the names and addresses of Veterans and their dependents to a Federal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal, or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statutes, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.
17. Disclosure to other Federal agencies may be made to assist such agencies in preventing and detecting possible fraud or abuse by individuals in their operations and programs.
18. VA may, on its own initiative, disclose any information or records to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that the integrity or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of embarrassment or harm to the reputations of the record subject, harm to economic or property interests, identify theft or fraud, or harm to the security, confidentiality, or integrity of this system or other systems (entity) that rely upon the potentially compromised information; and (3) the disclosure is to agencies, entities, or persons whom VA determines as reasonably necessary to assist or carry out the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. This routine uses permits disclosures by the Department to respond to a suspected or confirmed data breach, including the conduct of any risk analysis or provision of credit protection services as provided in 38 U.S.C. 5724, as the terms are defined in 38 U.S.C. 5727.
19. For program review purposes and the seeking of accreditation and/or certification, disclosure may be made to survey teams of TJC and similar national accreditation agencies or boards with whom VA has a contract or agreement to conduct such reviews, but only to the extent that the information is necessary and relevant to the review.
20. Disclosure of information may be made to the next-of-kin and/or the person(s) with whom the patient has a meaningful relationship to the extent necessary and on a need-to-know basis consistent with good medical and ethical practices.
21. Disclosure of ethics consultation records to groups (
Records are maintained on electronic media in ECWeb on a centrally located VA-owned server. In most cases, copies of back-up computer files are maintained at off-site locations. Subsidiary record information is maintained at the various respective ethics consultation services within the health care facility and by individuals, organizations, and/or agencies with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform such services, as the VA may deem practicable.
Records are retrieved by consultation number, name of ethics consultant, requester, ethics domain or topic, facility, keywords or phrases.
1. Access to VA working and storage areas is restricted to VA employees on a “need-to-know” basis; strict control measures are enforced to ensure that disclosure to these individuals is also based on this same principle. Generally, VA file areas are locked after normal duty hours and the facilities are protected from outside access by the Federal Protective Service or other security personnel.
2. Access to computer rooms at health care facilities is generally limited by appropriate locking devices and restricted to authorized VA employees and vendor personnel. Automated Data Processing (ADP) peripheral devices are placed in secure areas (areas that are locked or have limited access) or are otherwise protected. Information in ECWeb may be accessed by authorized VA employees. Access to file information is controlled at two levels; the systems recognize authorized employees by series of individually unique passwords/codes as a part of each data message, and the employees are limited to only that information in the file, which is needed in the performance of their official duties. Information that is downloaded from ECWeb and maintained on personal computers is afforded similar storage and access protections as the data that is maintained in the original files. Access to information stored on automated storage media at other VA locations is controlled by individually unique passwords/codes.
3. Access to computer rooms is restricted to authorized operational personnel through electronic locking devices. All other persons gaining access to computer rooms are escorted. Information stored in the computer may be accessed by authorized VA employees at remote locations including VA health care facilities, Information Systems Centers, VA Central Office, and Veteran Integrated Service Networks. Access is controlled by individually unique passwords/codes, which must be changed periodically by the employee.
Records that are stored within Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) and Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) will be maintained in accordance with Record Control Schedule (RCS) 10-1 Item # XLIII-2, Electronic Health Records, NARA job# N1-15-02-3. All other records maintained outside the Electronic Health Record will be maintained in accordance with General Records Schedule (GRS) 25 Ethics Program Records Item 1.a and 1.b (N1-GRS-01-1 item 1a & 1b).
Official responsible for policies and procedures: Executive Director, National Center for Ethics in Health Care, Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420. Official maintaining the system: Director at the VA health care facility where the individuals are associated.
Individuals seeking information regarding access to and contesting of ECWeb records may write, call or visit the last VA health care facility where health care was provided or by writing the National Center for Ethics in Health Care.
Individuals seeking information regarding access to and contesting of records in this system may write, call or visit the VA health care facility location where they are or were employed or made contact or they may write the National Center for Ethics in Health Care.
(See Record Access Procedures above.)
Information in this system of records is provided by the patient, family members or accredited representative, and friends, authorized surrogates, health care agents, employees, contractors, medical service providers, and various automated systems providing clinical and managerial support at VA health care facilities.
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 |