Federal Register Vol. 81, No.23,
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 23 (February 4, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 23 (February 4, 2016)
| Page Range | 5881-6155 | |
| FR Document |
Document Created: 2015-12-31 23:05:27
Document Modified: 2015-12-31 23:05:27
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 81 FR 6036 - Changes in Certain Multifamily Mortgage Insurance Premiums | |
| 81 FR 5896 - Student Pilot Application Requirements | |
| 81 FR 6002 - Farm Credit Administration Board; Sunshine Act; Regular Meeting | |
| 81 FR 6096 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Every People Under Heaven: Jerusalem, 1000-1400” Exhibition | |
| 81 FR 6096 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Edgar Degas: A Strange New Beauty” Exhibition | |
| 81 FR 5993 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 81 FR 5969 - Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; Negotiator Nominations and Schedule of Committee Meetings | |
| 81 FR 6088 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 81 FR 6003 - Schedule Change to Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 81 FR 6005 - Sunshine Act Notice | |
| 81 FR 6094 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review | |
| 81 FR 6095 - Alabama Disaster #AL-00060 | |
| 81 FR 6095 - Washington Disaster #WA-00063 | |
| 81 FR 6037 - Invasive Species Advisory Committee; Call for Nominations | |
| 81 FR 5906 - Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended | |
| 81 FR 6036 - 60 Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: ConnectHome Use and Benefits Telephone Survey | |
| 81 FR 6035 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Housing Counseling Training Grant Program | |
| 81 FR 6055 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 81 FR 6101 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Pilot Schools-FAR 141 | |
| 81 FR 6099 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aviation Maintenance Technical Schools | |
| 81 FR 6096 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: B4UFLY Smartphone App | |
| 81 FR 6102 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Changes in Permissible Stage 2 Airplane Operations | |
| 81 FR 6095 - Mississippi Disaster Number MS-00082 | |
| 81 FR 6097 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate Application | |
| 81 FR 6102 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Operating Requirements: Commuter and On-Demand Operation | |
| 81 FR 6097 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Human Space Flight Requirements for Crew and Space Flight Participants | |
| 81 FR 6094 - Missouri Disaster #MO-00078 | |
| 81 FR 6053 - NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Heliophysics Subcommittee; Meeting. | |
| 81 FR 5989 - Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014 | |
| 81 FR 5986 - Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
| 81 FR 5990 - Quarterly Update to Annual Listing of Foreign Government Subsidies on Articles of Cheese Subject to an In-Quota Rate of Duty | |
| 81 FR 5985 - Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order | |
| 81 FR 6103 - Hazardous Materials: Public Meeting Notice for the Research and Development Forum | |
| 81 FR 6055 - Quarterly Public Meeting | |
| 81 FR 5981 - Information Collection: Forest Service Law Enforcement & Investigations Ride-Along Program | |
| 81 FR 5982 - National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council | |
| 81 FR 6038 - Notice of Temporary Closures of Selected Public Lands in La Paz County, Arizona | |
| 81 FR 5881 - Importation of Orchids in Growing Media From Taiwan | |
| 81 FR 6052 - Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH) | |
| 81 FR 6050 - Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH) | |
| 81 FR 6004 - Notice of Termination; 10264 Community Security Bank; New Prague, MN | |
| 81 FR 6004 - Notice of Termination; 10360 Cortez Community Bank; Brooksville, Florida | |
| 81 FR 6004 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of; 10292 The Peoples Bank; Winder, Georgia | |
| 81 FR 6005 - Notice of Termination; 10203 State Bank of Aurora; Aurora, Minnesota | |
| 81 FR 6004 - Notice of Termination; 10033 Suburban Federal Savings Bank; Crofton, Maryland | |
| 81 FR 6057 - Mallinckrodt, LLC. | |
| 81 FR 6043 - Louis Watson, M.D.; Decision and Order | |
| 81 FR 6047 - Kenneth H. Bull, M.D.; Decision and Order | |
| 81 FR 6044 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Pharmacore, Inc. | |
| 81 FR 6045 - David W. Bailey, M.D.; Decision and Order | |
| 81 FR 6028 - Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 81 FR 6050 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Reinstatement, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection for Which Approval has Expired: 2016 Supplemental Victimization Survey (SVS) | |
| 81 FR 6033 - Cooperative Research and Development Agreement Opportunity With the Department of Homeland Security for the International Foot-and-Mouth Disease Vaccine and Diagnostics Field Trial | |
| 81 FR 6055 - LR-ISG-2015-01, Changes to Buried and Underground Piping and Tank Recommendations | |
| 81 FR 6056 - Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes: Meeting Notice | |
| 81 FR 6026 - The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Strategic Visioning: Draft Strategic Research Priorities; Request for Comments | |
| 81 FR 6022 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 6024 - Health IT Policy Committee Advisory Meeting; Notice of Meeting | |
| 81 FR 6023 - Health IT Standards Committee Advisory Meeting; Notice of Meeting | |
| 81 FR 6025 - National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics: Meeting | |
| 81 FR 6023 - National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics: Meeting Standards Subcommittee | |
| 81 FR 6059 - Excepted Service | |
| 81 FR 5943 - Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity, Long-Term Debt, and Clean Holding Company Requirements for Systemically Important U.S. Bank Holding Companies and Intermediate Holding Companies of Systemically Important Foreign Banking Organizations; Regulatory Capital Deduction for Investments in Certain Unsecured Debt of Systemically Important U.S. Bank Holding Companies | |
| 81 FR 5995 - Notice of Public Hearings for the Draft Northern Pass Transmission Line Project Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0463) | |
| 81 FR 5991 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
| 81 FR 6040 - Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Assateague Island National Seashore, Maryland and Virginia | |
| 81 FR 6009 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Quarterly Listing of Program Issuances-October Through December 2015 | |
| 81 FR 5983 - Madison Ranger District, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest; Montana; South Gravelly Allotment Management Plan | |
| 81 FR 6104 - Application of Elite Airways, LLC for Certificate Authority | |
| 81 FR 5993 - Notice of Intent To Grant a Partially Exclusive License; Optio Labs, Inc. | |
| 81 FR 5983 - Assessment Report of Ecological, Economic and Social Conditions, Trends and Sustainability for the Custer Gallatin National Forest, Carbon, Carter, Gallatin, Madison, Meagher, Park, Powder River, Rosebud, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Counties, Montana, and Harding County, South Dakota | |
| 81 FR 5981 - Gallatin County Resource Advisory Committee | |
| 81 FR 5937 - Organization and Delegation of Duties | |
| 81 FR 5916 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; James River, Isle of Wight and Newport News, VA | |
| 81 FR 5916 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Columbia River, Vancouver, WA | |
| 81 FR 5967 - Special Local Regulation, Daytona Beach Grand Prix of the Seas; Atlantic Ocean, Daytona Beach, FL | |
| 81 FR 6103 - Notice and Request for Comments | |
| 81 FR 6038 - Notice of Public Meeting: Bureau of Land Management Nevada Resource Advisory Councils; Postponement | |
| 81 FR 6037 - Trinity River Adaptive Management Working Group; Public Meeting | |
| 81 FR 5979 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Dolphin and Wahoo Resources of the Atlantic; Commercial Dolphin Fishery of the Atlantic; Control Date | |
| 81 FR 5978 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Amendments to the Reef Fish, Spiny Lobster, Queen Conch, and Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates Fishery Management Plans of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands | |
| 81 FR 6104 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Persons Providing Remittance Forwarding Services to Cuba | |
| 81 FR 6105 - Health Services Research and Development Service, Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice of Meetings | |
| 81 FR 6006 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 81 FR 6005 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 81 FR 6055 - Notice of Meetings; Proposal Review | |
| 81 FR 6008 - Request for Nominations of Candidates To Serve on the Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) | |
| 81 FR 6007 - Subcommittee on Procedures Review (SPR), Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Meeting | |
| 81 FR 6006 - Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Meeting | |
| 81 FR 6007 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel: Initial Review | |
| 81 FR 5999 - Mr. Adam R. Rousselle, II; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
| 81 FR 5998 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
| 81 FR 5997 - Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Coastal Bend Header Project | |
| 81 FR 5996 - Golden Pass Products, LLC; Golden Pass Pipeline, LLC; Revised Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Golden Pass Liquefied Natural Gas Export Project | |
| 81 FR 5998 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 81 FR 5999 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 81 FR 5996 - San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent System Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchanges; Notice of Compliance Filing | |
| 81 FR 6001 - Mark Henson; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene | |
| 81 FR 6049 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Partial Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act | |
| 81 FR 6042 - Truck and Bus Tires From China; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations | |
| 81 FR 6064 - Susa Registered Fund, LLC and Susa Fund Management LLP; Notice of Application | |
| 81 FR 6084 - Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 | |
| 81 FR 6085 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services | |
| 81 FR 6088 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Consisting of Proposed Amendments to Rule A-3, on Membership on the Board | |
| 81 FR 6066 - In the Matter of the Application of ISE Mercury, LLC for Registration as a National Securities Exchange; Findings, Opinion, and Order of the Commission | |
| 81 FR 6063 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Revise the ICC Risk Management Framework | |
| 81 FR 5990 - Marine Mammals; File No. 19225 | |
| 81 FR 6022 - Notice of Availability: 2015 EditionTest Tools and Test Procedures Approved by the National Coordinator for the ONC Health IT Certification Program | |
| 81 FR 5917 - State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) | |
| 81 FR 6028 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 81 FR 6027 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 81 FR 6028 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 81 FR 6026 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 81 FR 6027 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 81 FR 6024 - Meeting of the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee; Update | |
| 81 FR 6099 - Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee-New Task | |
| 81 FR 6005 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 81 FR 5902 - Amendment of Class E Airspace for the following New York Towns; Ithaca, NY; Poughkeepsie, NY | |
| 81 FR 6105 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Orders 13224 | |
| 81 FR 5905 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Rapid City, SD | |
| 81 FR 5903 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Minot, ND | |
| 81 FR 5946 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Hollis, OK | |
| 81 FR 5901 - Amendment of Class E Airspace for Lynchburg, VA | |
| 81 FR 6031 - Washington; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 81 FR 6034 - Office of the Chief Information Officer; Homeland Security Information Network Advisory Committee Meeting Notice | |
| 81 FR 6030 - Michigan; Emergency and Related Determinations | |
| 81 FR 6032 - Mississippi; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 81 FR 6030 - Missouri; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 81 FR 5948 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Beach, ND | |
| 81 FR 6031 - Idaho; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 81 FR 5949 - Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Hagerstown, MD | |
| 81 FR 5898 - Establishment of Multiple Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Western United States | |
| 81 FR 6032 - Alabama; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 81 FR 6098 - Noise Exposure Map Notice; Great Falls International Airport, Great Falls, MT | |
| 81 FR 5984 - Estimates of the Voting Age Population for 2015 | |
| 81 FR 6041 - Certain Variable Valve Actuation Devices and Automobiles Containing the Same; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation; Termination of the Investigation | |
| 81 FR 6054 - Notice of Information Collection | |
| 81 FR 6003 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 81 FR 5920 - Numbering Policies for Modern Communications, IP-Enabled Services, Telephone Number Requirements for IP-Enabled, Services Providers, Telephone Number Portability et al. | |
| 81 FR 6040 - Recent Trends in U.S. Services Trade, 2016 Annual Report | |
| 81 FR 6006 - Request for Health Information Technology Policy Committee Nominations | |
| 81 FR 6002 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 5992 - Compliance Bulletin-The FCRA's Requirement That Furnishers Establish and Implement Reasonable Written Policies and Procedures Regarding the Accuracy and Integrity of Information Furnished to All Consumer Reporting Agencies | |
| 81 FR 5993 - Board on Coastal Engineering Research Meeting | |
| 81 FR 5994 - Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Nanushuk Project; Located 7.5 Miles Northeast of Nuiqsut, Alaska | |
| 81 FR 5944 - Airworthiness Directives; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Gliders | |
| 81 FR 5908 - Allocation of Creditable Foreign Taxes | |
| 81 FR 5966 - Allocation of Creditable Foreign Taxes | |
| 81 FR 5893 - Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 81 FR 5951 - Offer Caps in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators | |
| 81 FR 6107 - Assessments | |
| 81 FR 5971 - Accessibility of User Interfaces, and Video Programming Guides and Menus | |
| 81 FR 5921 - Accessibility of User Interfaces, and Video Programming Guides and Menus | |
| 81 FR 5889 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes |
Issue
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule.
We are amending the regulations governing the importation of plants and plant products to add orchid plants of the genus
Effective March 7, 2016.
Ms. Heather Coady, Regulatory Policy Specialist, Plants for Planting Policy, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2076.
The regulations in 7 CFR part 319 prohibit or restrict the importation of certain plants and plant products into the United States to prevent the introduction of quarantine plant pests. The regulations contained in “Subpart—Plants for Planting,” §§ 319.37 through 319.37-14 (referred to below as the regulations), prohibit or restrict, among other things, the importation of living plants, plant parts, and seeds for propagation or planting.
The regulations differentiate between prohibited articles and restricted articles. Prohibited articles are plants for planting whose importation into the United States is not authorized due to the risk the articles present of introducing or disseminating plant pests. Restricted articles are articles authorized for importation into the United States, provided that the articles are subject to measures to address such risk.
Conditions for the importation into the United States of restricted articles in growing media are found in § 319.37-8. Within that section, the introductory text of paragraph (e) lists taxa of restricted articles that may be imported into the United States in approved growing media, subject to the provisions of a systems approach. Paragraph (e)(1) of § 319.37-8 lists the approved growing media, while paragraph (e)(2) contains the provisions of the systems approach. Within paragraph (e)(2), paragraphs (i) through (viii) contain provisions that are generally applicable to all the taxa listed in the introductory text of paragraph (e). Paragraphs (i) through (viii) collectively:
• Require the plants to be grown in accordance with written agreements between the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of the country where the plants are grown and between the foreign NPPO and the grower;
• Require the plants to be rooted and grown in a greenhouse that meets certain requirements for quarantine pest exclusion and that is used only for plants being grown in compliance with § 319.37-8(e);
• Restrict the source of the seeds or parent plants used to produce the plants, and require grow-out or treatment of parent plants imported into the exporting country from another country;
• Specify the sources of water that may be used on the plants, the height of the benches on which the plants must be grown, and the conditions under which the plants must be stored and packaged; and
• Require that the plants be inspected in the greenhouse and found free of evidence of quarantine plant pests no more than 30 days prior to the exportation of the plants to the United States.
A phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of the country in which the plants were grown that declares that the above conditions have been met must accompany the plants at the time of importation. These conditions have been used successfully to mitigate the risk of quarantine pest introduction associated with the importation into the United States of approved plants established in growing media.
In response to a request from the NPPO of Taiwan, we prepared a pest risk analysis (PRA) in order to identify the quarantine plant pests that could follow the importation of orchid plants of the genus
Based on the findings of the PRA, we prepared a risk management document (RMD) to determine whether phytosanitary measures exist that would address this quarantine plant pest risk. The RMD suggested that the risk would be addressed if the plants met the general conditions of § 319.37-8(e)(2).
As a result, on December 3, 2014, we published in the
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending February 2, 2015. We reopened and extended the deadline for comments until March 18, 2015, in a document published in the
A number of commenters stated that the specific orchid species that fall into the
We agree with the commenters that the genus
Several commenters stated that, because bare-rooted
Under the regulations in 7 CFR 319.5, the NPPO of a foreign country may request that APHIS authorize the importation of a plant or plant product that is not allowed importation into the United States, and APHIS will consider the request if it includes all the categories of information specified in § 319.5 for such requests. The NPPO of Taiwan made such a request for
Several commenters stated that the rule appears to be the byproduct of bilateral negotiations between the United States and Taiwan, and that the rule was linked to agreements authorizing the export of certain U.S. commodities to Taiwan. Because of this, the commenters expressed concern that APHIS did not adequately consider the risk associated with the importation of
While political and economic interests may stimulate consideration of the expansion of trade of agricultural commodities between countries, these did not lead us to issue the proposed rule. The United States is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and a signatory to the WTO's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). In these capacities, the United States has agreed that any prohibitions it places on the importation of plants for planting will be based on scientific evidence, and will not be maintained without sufficient scientific evidence indicating that the prohibitions are necessary to protect plant life and health within the United States.
The PRA and RMD that accompanied the proposed rule evaluated the quarantine plant risk associated with the importation of
We prepared the PRA and RMD in accordance with IPPC standards
One commenter stated that certain life stages of quarantine plant pests can be difficult to detect at ports of entry into the United States, as can quarantine plant pests with unique feeding habits. For this reason, the commenter stated that we should prohibit the importation of
If the provisions of the proposed rule are adhered to, there will be a negligible risk that
That being said, pursuant to §§ 319.37-3 and 319.37-11 of the regulations, lots of
One commenter stated that Taiwan cannot be trusted to adhere to the provisions of the proposed rule.
Like the United States, Taiwan is a signatory to the SPS Agreement. As such, it has agreed to respect the phytosanitary measures the United States imposes on the importation of plants and plant products from Taiwan when the United States demonstrates the need to impose these measures in order to protect plant health within the United States. The PRA that accompanied the proposed rule provided evidence of such a need.
One commenter stated that the NPPO of Taiwan should have to demonstrate adherence to the proposed systems approach with small shipments of orchids before we allow more widespread export of
We do not consider this sort of provisional authorization necessary. We authorize the importation of many plants and plant products from Taiwan into the United States, and have not encountered any issues to suggest the NPPO of Taiwan will not or cannot adhere to the requirements of our export programs for such commodities.
As we mentioned above, we prepared a PRA in support of the proposed rule. The purpose of the PRA was to identify the quarantine plant pests that could follow the importation of
One commenter pointed out that the PRA was completed in May of 2012.
There have not been any such detections.
As part of the PRA, we prepared a list of plant pests that are associated with
One commenter asked why we limited the list to plant pests. The commenter asked whether APHIS had considered whether zoonotic diseases could follow the pathway on
We limit our PRAs to evaluating plant pest risk; this is consistent with our PRA guidelines related to this specific class of plant commodity and also with IPPC standards. However, the environmental assessment that accompanied the proposed rule evaluated the potential environmental consequences associated with authorizing the importation of
Several commenters pointed out that, while some plant pests on the list were identified to the species level, others were identified only to the genus level. The commenters stated that certain species within a genus of plant pests can be significantly more destructive than other species within that genus, and asked us to revise the pest list to identify all plant pests of
The commenters are correct that certain plant pest species within a particular genus can be significantly more destructive than other species in the same genus. For this reason, as we stated in the PRA, the taxonomic level for organisms listed in our PRAs is usually the species. This is consistent with both our standards as well as with the IPPC standards for PRAs, which suggest that, within PRAs, the identity of the organism should be clearly defined to ensure that the assessment is being conducted on distinct organisms.
Accordingly, within the PRA, all plant pests that we determined to be associated with
One commenter pointed out that our PRA included not only a pest list, but also a list of plant pests that have been intercepted on bare-rooted
If the pest list did not include a particular plant pest for which we have pest interception records, it was because we could either find no evidence that the pest occurs in Taiwan, or could find no additional evidence suggesting the pest is associated with
Several commenters expressed concern that the pest list may be incomplete, and that unidentified quarantine pests could be introduced into the United States through the importation of
We compiled the pest list in the PRA from multiple sources, including information provided by the NPPO of Taiwan, pest detection records, and our own review of scientific literature. We are confident that the list has identified all quarantine pests associated with
A commenter expressed concern that, if quarantine pests of
If this occurs, we will take appropriate measures to address such risk. This could include additional restrictions on the importation of
One commenter pointed out that no nematodes were included in the pest list. The commenter asked us to explain their omission.
As we mentioned above, the list was of plant pests that are associated with
A commenter pointed out that the pest list had only included one species of
At this time, we are aware that multiple species of
The same commenter stated that we had also previously indicated that we take no action at ports of entry to the United States on commodities determined to be affected with
Under the Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7711
One commenter pointed out that the PRA stated that we have intercepted springtails of the family Sminthuridae on bare-rooted
We have not intercepted
Several commenters pointed out that biting midges (
We disagree that sphagnum moss is a hospitable host for biting midges, and that biting midges are likely to follow the pathway on such moss when it is used as a growing medium for plants for planting. We approved the use of sphagnum moss as a growing medium for plants for planting in 1980 (45 FR 31572-31597). Given the worldwide prevalence of biting midges, we would expect to have detected biting midges during port-of-entry inspections of orchids and other plants for planting in sphagnum moss by this time. We have had no such detections.
Additionally, we note that there is no evidence that biting midges are plant pests.
Similarly, a commenter stated that sphagnum moss and organic fibers, which are also listed as an approved growing medium, can harbor nematodes and species of fire ants of quarantine significance, and that these pests could therefore follow the pathway on
We have no evidence that sphagnum moss or organic fibers are a pathway for the pests mentioned by the commenter, nor did the commenter supply any such evidence. Since sphagnum moss and organic fibers were approved as growing media for plants for planting in 1980, there have been no detections of quarantine plant pests on these growing media that would suggest these growing media are a pathway for the introduction of quarantine plant pests.
Several commenters stated that many quarantine plant pests that are not associated with
Bark is not listed in § 319.37-8 as an approved growing medium.
Finally, several commenters stated that we should revise the pest list to indicate that several of the plant pests listed, while not quarantine plant pests, are not known to occur in Hawaii.
This practice would be inconsistent with IPPC standards for PRAs, which suggest that pests should be classified based on whether or not they are quarantine pests.
Based on the pest list, the PRA identified 14 quarantine pests as occurring in Taiwan and potentially following the pathway on
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
One commenter stated that
We agree that
One commenter stated that several of the pests that were listed on the pest list, but not identified as quarantine pests, are known to occur in Hawaii. The commenter pointed out that APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR 318.13-1 impose a general prohibition on the interstate movement of plants for planting from Hawaii in order to prevent the introduction or further dissemination of plant pests within the United States. The commenter further pointed out that § 318.13-1 refers to this prohibition as a quarantine. The commenter concluded that, because of this quarantine, all plant pests of
While we agree with the commenter that § 318.13-1 imposes a general quarantine on the interstate movement of plants for planting from Hawaii, including the interstate movement of
The PRA also analyzed the likelihood that each of the 14 quarantine pests listed above would be introduced into the United States through the importation of
One commenter stated that the PRA should be revised to evaluate the likelihood that snails and slugs in the families of Achatinidae, Succineidae, Philomycidae, Subulinidae, Veronicellidae, Camanidae, Helicarionidae, and Ariophantidae that occur in Taiwan will follow the pathway on
The PRA contained an evaluation of the likelihood that quarantine snails and slugs that occur in Taiwan and are associated with
Several commenters stated that the PRA should have evaluated the likelihood of introduction and establishment in Hawaii of all plant pests on the pest list that could potentially follow the pathway on
The PRA evaluated the likelihood of introduction and establishment in Hawaii of all quarantine plant pests that could potentially follow the pathway on
One commenter assumed that it was incumbent on the State of Hawaii to conduct an evaluation of the likelihood and consequences of establishment in Hawaii of plant pests that could potentially follow the pathway on
We disagree with the commenter. Pursuant to section 7711 of the PPA, APHIS has established the Federally Recognized State Managed Phytosanitary Program (FRSMP). Under the program, States may petition APHIS to recognize State-managed phytosanitary programs that are developed to eradicate, exclude, or contain plant pests that are of limited distribution within that State and that APHIS does not consider to be of quarantine significance.
Finally, a commenter who co-authored an article
We agree that we should not have cited the article as evidence that approved growing media are not a conducive host for snails. We also agree that
However,
We proposed that the
One commenter expressed concern that screenings with openings of 0.6 mm would not preclude
We agree that screenings with openings of 0.6 mm may not preclude all
One commenter assumed that certain growers would have to implement such pest management plans in order for their greenhouses to always employ sanitary procedures adequate to exclude quarantine pests from the
Under paragraph (e)(2) of § 319.37-8, the NPPO of Taiwan must enter into an agreement with APHIS to enforce the export program for
One commenter stated that APHIS should conduct monitoring of the development and implementation of these pest management plans, in addition to the NPPO of Taiwan.
We reserve the right to conduct such monitoring. Additionally, as we discuss below, APHIS inspectors may inspect the orchids prior to export. However, we do not consider it necessary for us to require APHIS to monitor the development and implementation of each pest management plan. For other export programs for plants and plant products from Taiwan to the United States, we have exercised joint monitoring responsibilities with the NPPO of Taiwan, and we have not encountered any issues that suggest we should modify this practice.
Several commenters surmised that most pest management plans would include the application of pesticides. They stated that Taiwan authorizes the use of pesticides that are prohibited for use within the United States, and that are significantly more potent than pesticides used within the United States. The commenters expressed concern that certain quarantine plant pests of
The commenter assumes that quarantine plant pests will be introduced into the United States through the importation of
Additionally, we have no evidence that any of the quarantine plant pests of
We proposed that the orchids would have to be inspected in the greenhouse and found free from evidence of quarantine pests by an APHIS inspector or an inspector of the NPPO of Taiwan no more than 30 days prior to the date of export to the United States.
Several commenters stated that visual inspections, in and of themselves, are not sufficient to address the quarantine plant pest risk associated with the importation of
We agree. This is why we proposed to require the orchids to be produced in accordance with the systems approach of § 319.37-8(e).
Several commenters stated visual inspections are not always able to detect signs of bacterial or viral infection. The commenters suggested that the orchids should have to be tested for bacterial and viral pathogens prior to export to the United States.
We do not consider viral testing to be necessary. The PRA did not identify any quarantine viruses that occur in Taiwan and are associated with
Although we did identify one quarantine bacterium,
One commenter pointed out that the RMD that accompanied the proposed rule appeared to require growers to employ bactericides for
We agree with the commenter. In the event that
As we mentioned earlier in this document, we noted that lots of 13 or more
Several commenters asked that we explain the inspection protocol at plant inspection stations.
At least 2 percent of the plants in each consignment of
If there are any pests detected, or any signs or symptoms of pests, inspectors at the stations will have recourse to pest identifiers and diagnostic testing to positively identify the pests. APHIS will take appropriate remedial measures if any consignments are determined to be infested with quarantine pests.
Finally, one commenter stated that the provisions of the proposed rule did not comply with the intent of Executive Order 13112, which instructs Federal agencies not to carry out actions that the agencies believe are likely to result in the introduction of invasive species.
The commenter's stated assumptions were that the provisions of the rule would not mitigate for
For the reasons discussed previously in this document, we regard these assumptions to be incorrect.
A number of commenters drew parallels between this proposed rule
We consider the export market for
We disagree with the commenters who stated that we have lacked sufficient resources to inspect
We also disagree with the commenters who stated that the number of
Finally, we have no evidence that any plant pests have been introduced into the United States through the importation of
One commenter stated that a 2007 survey of
We have confidence that the list of viral and bacterial pathogens of
We do not consider the survey referenced by the commenter to call into question the accuracy of our PRA; only
Finally, one commenter requested that “all of the pleadings and comments from the 2007 HOGA (Hawai'i Orchid Growers Association) versus USDA legal challenge on the importation of Taiwan Phalaenopsis” be included in the administrative record for the proposed rule.
In the lawsuit referenced by the commenter, which was commenced in 2005, HOGA challenged actions related to our consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
The pleadings and comments from the HOGA lawsuit predate, and do not address, the proposed rule regarding the importation into the United States of
In support of the proposed rule, we prepared an initial economic analysis and draft environmental assessment. We received several comments regarding both documents. These are discussed in
In preparing this final rule, we noticed an error in § 319.7-4, which contains general conditions regarding the withdrawal, cancellation, and revocation of various permits for plants and plant products.
Paragraph (b) of that section deals with cancellation of a permit that has been issued to a permittee, at the permittee's request. However, the section had erroneously stated that, upon receipt of such a request, APHIS will withdraw the individual's application, rather than cancel his or her permit. We have corrected this error.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the changes discussed in this document.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under
APHIS is amending the regulations in 7 CFR 319.37-8(e), which restrict the importation of orchids of the genus
Eliminating the requirement that
Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
An environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact have been prepared for this final rule. The environmental assessment provides a basis for the conclusion that the importation into the United States of
The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact were prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site. Copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are also available for public inspection at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect copies are requested to call ahead on (202) 799-7039 to facilitate entry into the reading room. In addition, copies may be obtained by writing to the individual listed under
This final rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2004-20-14, for all Airbus Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; and all Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes. AD 2004-20-14 required repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the splice fitting at fuselage frame (FR) 47 between stringers 24 and 26 (left- and right-hand sides), and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD reduces the inspection compliance time and repetitive inspection intervals, and adds Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes to the applicability. This AD was prompted by a determination that the inspection compliance time and repetitive inspection interval must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks in the splice fitting at fuselage FR 47. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the splice fitting at fuselage FR 47; such cracking could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective March 10, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 10, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of November 17, 2004 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004).
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004), which superseded AD 2001-03-14, Amendment 39-12118 (66 FR 10957, February 21, 2001). AD 2004-20-14 applied to all Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R (collectively called Model A300-600) series airplanes; and all Model A300 B4 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0184R1, dated August 22, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R (collectively called Model A300-600) series airplanes; all Model A300 B4 series airplanes; and all Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes. The MCAI states:
In order to prevent crack development in the fastener holes at Frame (FR) 47 splicing joint on A300 aeroplanes, Airbus developed modification (Mod) 5890 for aeroplanes in production and issued corresponding Service Bulletin (SB) A300-53-0199 for aeroplanes in service.
Subsequently, cracks were found on FR47 splice fitting between stringers (STRG) 24 and 26 on A300 aeroplanes previously modified by SB A300-53-0199.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued AD 2002-184
Since that [DGAC France] AD was issued, a fleet survey and updated Fatigue and Damage Tolerance analyses have been performed in order to substantiate the second A300-600 Extended Service Goal (ESG2) exercise. The results of these analyses have determined that the inspection threshold and intervals for A300-600 aeroplanes must be reduced to allow timely detection of these cracks and the accomplishment of an applicable corrective action.
For the reasons described above, [EASA] AD 2013-0184 retains the requirements of DGAC France AD 2002-184, which is superseded, but requires accomplishment of the actions for A300-600 aeroplanes within the new thresholds and intervals introduced with Revision 05 of Airbus SB [service bulletin] A300-53-6123 [dated August 1, 2011].
This [EASA] AD was revised to correct the splices Part Numbers (P/N) in Table 4 of Appendix 1 of this [EASA] AD. Also, reference is now made to Airbus SB A300-53-6123 Revision 06 [dated September 28, 2011], which corrected this mistake compared to Revision 05.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80 FR 27607, May 14, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.
United Parcel Service (UPS) and FedEx Express requested that we revise the compliance times in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (80 FR 27607, May 14, 2015) to match the compliance times in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 06, dated September 28, 2011, and EASA AD 2013-0184R1, dated August 22, 2013.
We agree with the commenters' requests to revise the compliance times in paragraph (k) of this AD to reflect the compliance times in EASA AD 2013-0184R1, dated August 22, 2013. We have revised paragraph (k) of this AD accordingly. The changes extend the inspection interval and do not add an additional burden on operators.
UPS requested that we revise paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (80 FR 27607, May 14, 2015) to retain the inspection intervals in AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004), until the airplanes have reached their design service goal (DSG). UPS stated that acceleration of the inspection interval on airplanes that have less than 33 percent of the original DSG does not enhance safety. UPS explained that the proposed inspection interval reduction introduces additional opportunities for fastener hole damage due to the inspection process, thus increasing the risk for subsequent fatigue damage.
We disagree with the commenter's request. Since AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004), was issued, Airbus conducted a fleet survey and an analysis to extend the DSG. In consideration of this information, we determined that the inspection interval and thresholds needed to be reduced to support timely detection of cracks. The Airbus analysis for the extension of the DSG and other data was used to determine the compliance thresholds and intervals for this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
FedEx Express requested that we revise the flight-cycle compliance time in paragraph (k)(1) of the proposed AD (80 FR 27607, May 14, 2015) from 2,000 flight cycles to 2,200 flight cycles so that the inspections can consistently be performed at the same interval as a C-check. FedEx Express stated that it considers the 2,200-flight-cycle interval to be conservative. FedEx Express submitted service experience from the previous inspections showing relatively few findings.
We do not agree with the commenter's request. The inspections are dependent upon various configurations and average flight times (AFTs). The commenter did not identify the applicable configuration for the requested 2,200-flight-cycle interval. Operators may request approval of a different interval under the provisions of paragraph (o)(1) of this AD if sufficient specific information is submitted to substantiate that the compliance time will provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
UPS request that we revise the compliance times to remove the AFT classifications. UPS stated that it considers that the inspection interval difference with regard to the AFT adds a level of compliance complication that does not enhance fleet safety.
We disagree with the commenter's request. The compliance time thresholds and intervals using AFTs were developed by Airbus using fleet experience and analysis. Once we issue this AD, the commenter may request approval of a different interval under the provisions of paragraph (o)(1) of this AD. Sufficient data must be submitted to substantiate that the compliance time will provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 27607, May 14, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 27607, May 14, 2015).
Airbus has issued the following service information:
• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 03, including Appendix 03, dated July 26, 2007. This service bulletin describes procedures for inspections to detect cracking of the splice fitting at fuselage FR 47 between stringers 24 and 26, and corrective actions.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 06, dated September 28, 2011. This service bulletin describes procedures for inspections for cracking of the splice fitting at fuselage FR 47 between stringers 24 and 26, and corrective actions.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 72 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take up to 14 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $85,680, or $1,190 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take up to 204 work-hours and require parts costing up to $37,000, for a cost of up to $54,340 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective March 10, 2016.
This AD replaces AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004).
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.
(5) Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a determination that the inspection compliance time and repetitive inspection interval specified in AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004), must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks in the splice fitting at fuselage frame (FR) 47. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the splice fitting at fuselage FR 47; such cracking could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004), with new service information. For airplanes defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 02, dated November 12, 2002: Do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to detect cracking of the splice fitting at fuselage FR 47 between stringers 24 and 26 (left- and right-hand sides), at the applicable times specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the earlier of the flight-cycle/flight-hour intervals specified in the applicable column in Table 2 of Figure 1 and Sheet 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002. Do the inspections in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002; or Revision 03, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 26, 2007. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 03, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 26, 2007.
(1) For airplanes that have accumulated 20,000 or more total flight cycles as of November 17, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004)): Do the initial inspection at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) At the earlier of the flight-cycle/flight-hour intervals after November 17, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004)), as specified in the applicable column in Table 1 of Figure 1 and Sheet 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002.
(ii) Within 750 flight cycles or 1,500 flight hours after November 17, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004)), whichever is first.
(2) For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 20,000 total flight cycles as of November 17, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004)): Do the initial inspection at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) At the earlier of the flight-cycle/flight-hour intervals after November 17, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004)), as specified in the applicable column in Table 1 of Figure 1 and Sheet 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002.
(ii) Within 1,800 flight cycles or 3,000 flight hours after November 17, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004)), whichever is first.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (b) of AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004), with new service information. For airplanes defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 02, dated November 12, 2002: Do the HFEC inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD at the applicable times specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the earlier of the flight-cycle/flight-hour intervals specified in the applicable column in Table 2 of Figure 1 and Sheet 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002. Do the inspections in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002; or Revision 06, dated September 28, 2011. Accomplishment of the actions
(1) For airplanes that have accumulated 10,000 or more total flight cycles as of November 17, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004)): Do the initial inspection within 750 flight cycles or 1,900 flight hours after November 17, 2004, whichever is first.
(2) For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 10,000 total flight cycles as of November 17, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004)): Do the initial inspection at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) At the earlier of the flight-cycle/flight-hour intervals after November 17, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-2-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004)), as specified in the applicable column in Table 1 of Figure 1 and Sheet 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002.
(ii) Within 1,500 flight cycles or 3,800 flight hours after November 17, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004)), whichever is first.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (c) of AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004), with revised repair instructions. Repair any cracking found during any inspection required by paragraphs (g) and (h) this AD before further flight, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002; as applicable. Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002; specifies to contact Airbus in case of certain crack findings, this AD requires that a repair be accomplished before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate; or the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC) (or its delegated agent); or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(5) of this AD: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, remove the fasteners and accomplish an HFEC rotating probe inspection for cracking of the splice fitting between stringer 24 and 26, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 06, dated September 28, 2011. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(4) of this AD. If no cracking is found: Before further flight after each inspection, install new fasteners, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 06, dated September 28, 2011. Accomplishment of the initial inspection required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD for that airplane.
(1) For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5890 or the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6131 have not been done: At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) For airplanes that have an average flight time (AFT) that is more than 1.5 hours: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i)(A) and (j)(1)(i)(B) of this AD.
(A) Before the accumulation of 2,500 total flight cycles or 5,500 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(B) Within 800 flight cycles or 1,750 flight hours, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
(ii) For airplanes that have an AFT that is equal to or less than 1.5 hours: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(ii)(A) and (j)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD.
(A) Before the accumulation of 2,700 total flight cycles or 4,100 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(B) Within 800 flight cycles or 1,750 flight hours, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For airplanes that have accomplished Airbus Modification 5890 or have accomplished the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6131: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(2)(i) or (j)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) For airplanes that have an AFT that is more than 1.5 hours: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i)(A) and (j)(2)(i)(B) of this AD.
(A) Before the accumulation of 6,800 total flight cycles or 14,700 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(B) Within 800 flight cycles or 1,750 flight hours, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
(ii) For airplanes that have an AFT that is equal to or less than 1.5 hours: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(ii)(A) and (j)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD.
(A) Before the accumulation of 7,300 total flight cycles or 11,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(B) Within 800 flight cycles or 1,750 flight hours, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(5) of this AD: Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD at the applicable time specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(4) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes that have an AFT of more than 1.5 hours and meet the applicable conditions specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (k)(1)(iv) of this AD: Inspect at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles or 4,300 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(i) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5890 has not been accomplished.
(ii) Airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6131 have not been accomplished.
(iii) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5890 has been accomplished and have splice part number (P/N) A53834139-202/-203 installed.
(iv) Airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6131 have been accomplished and have splice P/N A53834139-202/-203 installed.
(2) For airplanes that have an AFT that is equal to or less than 1.5 hours and meet the applicable conditions specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through (k)(2)(iv) of this AD: Inspect at intervals not to exceed 2,100 flight cycles or 3,200 flight hours.
(i) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5890 has not been accomplished.
(ii) Airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6131 have not been accomplished.
(iii) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5890 has been accomplished and have splice P/N A53834139-202/-203 installed.
(iv) Airplanes on which the actions described in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6131 have been accomplished and have splice P/N A53834139-202/-203 installed.
(3) For airplanes that have an AFT of more than 1.5 hours and meet the applicable conditions specified in paragraphs (k)(3)(i) and (k)(3)(ii) of this AD: Inspect at intervals not to exceed 1,600 flight cycles or 3,500 flight hours.
(i) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5890 has been accomplished and have splice P/N A53812635-200/-201/-202/-203 installed.
(ii) Airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6131 have been accomplished and have splice P/N A53812635-200-201/-202/-203 installed.
(4) For the airplanes that have an AFT that is equal to or less than 1.5 hours and meet the applicable conditions specified in paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (k)(4)(ii) of this AD: Inspect at intervals not to exceed 1,700 flight cycles or 2,600 flight hours.
(i) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5890 has been accomplished and have splice P/N A53812635-200/-201/-202/-203 installed.
(ii) Airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6131 have been accomplished and have splice P/N A53812635-200/-201/-202/-203 installed.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (j) or (k) of this AD, any crack is found: Before further flight, do the applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (j) or (k) of this AD and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 06, dated September 28, 2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 03, dated July 26, 2007; specifies to contact Airbus: Before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (j) and (l) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(6) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 01, dated December 18, 2001, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004).
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 01, dated December 18, 2001, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(4) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 03, dated August 20, 2004, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(5) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 04, dated April 25, 2008, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(6) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 05, dated August 1, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Airworthiness Directive 2013-0184R1, dated August 22, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (q)(5) and (q)(6) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on March 10, 2016.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 03, dated July 26, 2007.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 06, dated September 28, 2011.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on November 17, 2004 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004).
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of a crack of the forward leg of the left front spar lower chord and cracks on the lower wing skin at three fastener holes common to the nacelle outboard side load fitting. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracks on the front spar lower chord, inspar skin, and wing skin, and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the forward leg of the front spar lower chord, inspar skin, and wing skin common to the nacelle outboard side load fitting, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the wing.
This AD is effective March 10, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 10, 2016.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Jennifer Tsakoumakis, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5264; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing stated that it concurs with the NPRM.
Southwest Airlines (SWA) requested clarification whether the installation of Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (
We concur with APB's comment and agree to clarify. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD (80 FR 36258, June 24, 2015) as paragraph (c)(1) and added new paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE (
SWA requested that we add instructions to paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (80 FR 36258, June 24, 2015) to specify that important CDCCL information must be observed during access and close-up while performing the actions specified in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD. SWA explained that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, does not contain any references to CDCCLs, despite the required access to the fuel tank, in order to perform either option 1 or option 2 non-destructive test inspection requirements. SWA stated that the access and close-up steps indicate, as a reference, the maintenance planning document (section 4), which does not provide a clear path to the airplane maintenance manual section that addresses CDCCL requirements.
We agree with the commenter's request. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, does not contain any references to CDCCLs that are part of the airworthiness limitations (AWLs). All applicable AWLs must still be observed while performing the actions mandated by this AD. We have revised paragraph (i) of this AD to state that while accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD, operators must ensure that all applicable CDCCLs are complied with.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections for cracks on the left and right wing front spar lower chord, inspar skin, and wing skin, and corrective action. The service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 331 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the actions specified for the Group 1 airplane in this AD.
We also have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective March 10, 2016.
None.
(1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a report of a crack in the forward leg of the left front spar lower chord and cracks on the lower wing skin at three fastener holes common to the nacelle outboard side load fitting. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the forward leg of the front spar lower chord, inspar skin, and wing skin common to the nacelle outboard side load fitting, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the wing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, do inspections of the left and right wing front spar lower chord and inspar skin, and the left and right wing nacelle outboard side load fitting fastener holes common to the front spar lower chord and skin, and do all applicable corrective actions, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
For Group 2 and 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014: Except as provided by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in Table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, do a detailed inspection for cracks on the left and right wing front spar lower chord and inspar skin, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, except as specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable interval specified in Table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, except in areas repaired in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
For Group 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014: Except as provided by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in Table 2 or Table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, do the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspection specified in either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD thereafter at the applicable interval specified in Table 2 or Table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014. While accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph, ensure that all applicable critical design configuration control limitations are complied with.
(1) Do an HFEC open hole probe inspection for cracks of the left and right wing nacelle outboard side load fitting fastener holes common to the front spar lower chord and skin, and perform all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with Part 2, Option 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
(2) Do an HFEC surface probe inspection for cracks in the wing inspar skin, and perform all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with Part 2, Option 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
(1) Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires
(2) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (k)(4)(ii) apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Jennifer Tsakoumakis, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5264; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
In rule document 2016-00199 beginning on page 1292 in the issue of Tuesday, January 12, 2016, make the following correction:
1. On pages 1293-1294, table “B. Student Pilot Application Requirements: Summary of Current, Proposed, and Finalized Provisions” is corrected as set forth below.
B. Student Pilot Application Requirements: Summary of Current, Proposed, and Finalized Provisions
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes 13 high altitude Area Navigation (RNAV) routes (Q-routes) in the western United States. The routes promote operational efficiencies for users and provide connectivity to current and proposed RNAV en route and terminal procedures. The low altitude RNAV route, T-326, published in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, requires more coordination and is removed from this rule.
Effective date 0901 UTC, March 31, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1 Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jason Stahl, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the route structure in the western U.S. to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.
On June 5, 2015, the FAA published in the
The development of new RNAV Standard Instrument Departure (SID) and Standard Terminal Arrival (STAR) routes requires incorporation of these Q routes into the NAS Route Structure in order to maximize the benefits of increased safety in high volume en route sectors.
The Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) currently does not have routes that join the Performance Based Navigation (PBN) arrival and departure procedures. The existing conventional jet route structure does not serve the new SID/STAR designs. Routes made up of ground based navigational aids are not capable of delivering aircraft onto the RNAV based arrival and departure procedures in an efficient manner. Developing these predictable and repeatable flight paths through a complex area confined by restricted areas will improve throughput and safety for Los Angeles ARTCC.
This first phase of a two phase project will align a network of Q-Routes with the new SIDs and STARs. The Q-Route structure is projected to optimize descent/climb profiles to/from several airports in southern California and create segregated arrival/departure paths to reduce airspace complexity.
High altitude United States RNAV routes are published in paragraph 2006 and high altitude Canadian RNAV routes are published in paragraph 2007 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The high altitude United States RNAV routes (Q-routes) and high altitude Canadian RNAV routes listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
This rule has several changes from the NPRM. First, the NPRM proposed to establish a low altitude RNAV route, T-326. Due to additional coordination required for low altitude routes, T-326 will not be included in this final rule, but will be finalized at a later date. Second, in the state of Nevada, BEALE waypoint was moved from lat. 36°10′56.60″ N., long. 114°49′34.81″ W. to lat. 36°10′56.83″ N., long. 114°49′34.09″ W., to properly connect to a Standard Instrument Departure procedure. In the state of Idaho, HELLS waypoint is removed from Q-73. Also in Idaho, CORDU waypoint is moved from lat. 48°10′46.10″ N., long. 116°40′21.84″ W., to lat. 48°10′46.41″ N., long. 116°40′21.84″ W., to align with a future polar Q route. And finally, LAKKR waypoint, listed under Q-73, was erroneously shown in the state of Arizona, but is actually located in Nevada.
The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish U.S. RNAV routes Q-70, Q-73, Q-74, Q-78, Q-86, Q-88, Q-90, Q-94, Q-96, Q-98, Q-114, Q-168, and Q-842, which is an extension of a current Canadian RNAV route and therefore retains the Canadian numbering. The routes will connect to new SID and STAR procedures as designed in the Southern California area. The routes are outlined below.
Q-70: Q-70 is from the HAILO, CA, waypoint (WP) to the SAKES, UT, WP to support departures from Los Angeles basin airports to the northeast.
Q-73: Q-73 is established from the MOMAR, CA, WP to the CORDU, ID, WP to accommodate arrivals to San Diego airport.
Q-74: Q-74 is from the NATEE, NV, WP to the DEANN, UT, WP and supports arrivals to John Wayne, Long Beach and Ontario airports from the northeast.
Q-78: Q-78 is established from the MARUE, NV, WP to the TOADD, AZ, WP to support arrivals to John Wayne, Long Beach and Ontario airports from the east and northeast.
Q-86: Q-86 is from the TTRUE, AZ, WP to the PLNDL, AZ, WP for arrivals to San Diego and Ontario airports from the east.
Q-88: Q-88 is established from the HAKMN, NV, WP to the CHESZ, UT, WP to support Los Angeles airport arrivals from the northeast.
Q-90: Q-90 is from the DNERO, CA, WP to the JASSE, AZ, WP and will be the primary RNAV route to Los Angeles from Denver ARTCC.
Q-94: Q-94 is from the WELUM, NV, WP to the ROOLL, AZ, WP to support Denver ARTCC arrivals to Burbank, Van Nuys, Camarillo and Oxnard airports.
Q-96: Q-96 is established from the PURSE, NV, WP to the KIMMR, UT, WP to support arrivals to Burbank, Van Nuys, Camarillo and Oxnard airports from the Salt Lake ARTCC.
Q-98: Q-98 is from the HAKMN, NV, WP to the PEEWE, AZ, WP to support Denver ARTCC arrivals to Los Angeles and San Diego airports.
Q-114: Q-114 extends from the NATEE, NV, WP to the BUGGG, UT, WP to support Salt Lake ARTCC arrivals to Long Beach, Ontario and Orange County airports.
Q-168: Q-168 extends from the FNNDA, CA, WP to the JASSE, AZ, WP and will be the primary arrival route for Los Angeles airport from the Denver ARTCC.
Q-842: Existing Canadian route Q-842 is extended south into U.S. airspace. The route will begin at the BEALE, NV, WP and extend north to the existing TOVUM, AB, WP in Canada. This will provide routing for departures from Los Angeles, Long Beach, Ontario and Orange County airports to airports in Calgary and Edmonton, Canada.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policy and Procedures” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E Airspace at Lynchburg, VA, by adjusting the geographic coordinates at Lynchburg Regional-Preston Glenn Field Airport and Falwell Airport, to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Effective 0901 UTC, March 31, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Lynchburg Regional-Preston Glenn Field Airport and Falwell Airport, Lynchburg, VA.
In a review of the airspace, the FAA found the geographic coordinates for Lynchburg Regional-Preston Glenn Field Airport and Falwell Airport as published in FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, do not match the FAA's charting information. This administrative change coincides with the FAA's aeronautical database for Class E Surface Airspace.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by adjusting the geographic coordinates at Lynchburg Regional-Preston Glenn Field Airport and Falwell Airport, Lynchburg, VA, to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
(Lat. 37°22′41″ N., long. 79°07′20″ W.)
Within a 4.5-mile radius of Lynchburg Regional-Preston Glenn Field Airport; and that airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.7 miles each side of the Lynchburg VORTAC 020° and 200° radials extending from the 4.5-mile radius to 1-mile south of the VORTAC, and within 1.8 miles each side of the Lynchburg VORTAC 022° radial extending from the 4.5-mile radius to 11.3 miles northeast of the VORTAC, excluding the portion within a .5-mile radius of Falwell Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be published continuously in the Airport/Facility Directory.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E Airspace at Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport, Ithaca, NY; and Kingston VORTAC, Poughkeepsie, NY, by eliminating the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part time status of the Class E surface airspace designated as an extension at the Ithaca and Poughkeepsie locations. This action also adds Dutchess County Airport to the Kingston VORTAC designation, updates the geographic coordinates of each navigation aid and Ithaca Tompkins Regional to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database, and recognizes the airport name for Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport. This is an administrative change to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Effective 0901 UTC, March 31, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at the New York airports listed in this final rule.
In a review of the airspace, the FAA found the airspace description for Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport, Ithaca, NY, formerly Tompkins County Airport, and Kingston VORTAC, Poughkeepsie, NY, as published in FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, does not match the FAA's charting information. This administrative change coincides with the FAA's aeronautical database for Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6004 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by eliminating the NOTAM information that reads “This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and
Additionally, the geographic coordinates for the listed navaids and Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport are updated to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database. The FAA also recognizes the airport's name change from Tompkins County Airport, Ithaca, NY, to Ithaca Tomkins Regional Airport, Ithaca, NY.
This is an administrative change amending the description for the above New York airports, to be in concert with the FAAs aeronautical database, and does not affect the boundaries, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface from the 4-mile radius of Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport to the 5.7-mile radius of the airport clockwise from the 329° bearing to the 081° bearing from the airport, and that airspace from the 4-mile radius of Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport to the 8.7-mile radius of the airport extending clockwise from the 081° bearing to the 137° bearing from the airport, and that airspace from the 4-mile radius of Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport to the 6.6-mile radius of the airport extending clockwise from the 137° bearing to the 170° bearing from the airport, and that airspace from the 4-mile radius to the 5.7-mile radius of Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport extending clockwise from the 170° bearing to the 196° bearing from the airport, and that airspace within 2.7 miles each side of the Ithaca VOR/DME 305° radial extending from the 4-mile radius of Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport to 7.4 miles northwest of the Ithaca VOR/DME.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3.1 miles each side of the Kingston VORTAC 025° radial extending from the VORTAC to 8.3 miles northeast of the VORTAC and within 1.8 miles each side of the Kingston VORTAC 231° radial extending from the 4-mile radius to 9.2 miles southwest of the VORTAC and within 3.1 miles each side of the Kingston VORTAC 050° radial extending from the VORTAC to 9.2 miles northeast of the VORTAC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends the legal description of the Class E surface area airspace and Class E airspace designated as an extension at Minot International Airport, Minot, ND, eliminating the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time status, and brings current the geographic coordinates of Minot International Airport to coincide with the FAA's database.
Effective 0901 UTC, March 31, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Minot International Airport, Minot, ND.
In a review of the airspace, the FAA found the airspace for Minot International Airport, Minot, ND as published in FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, does not require part time status. This is an administrative change removing the part time NOTAM information from the legal description for the airport, and also amends the geographic coordinates of the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by eliminating the NOTAM information that reads, “This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.” From the regulatory text of Class E surface area airspace and Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D, at Minot International Airport, Minot, ND. Additionally, the geographic coordinates of the airport are being updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This is an administrative change amending the description for Minot International Airport to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database, and does not affect the boundaries, or operating requirements of the airspace; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Within a 4.2-mile radius of Minot International Airport and within 3.5 miles each side of the Minot VORTAC 129° radial, extending from the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles southeast of the VORTAC, and within 3.5 miles each side of the Minot VORTAC 260° radial, extending from the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles west of the VORTAC, and within 3.5 miles each side of the Minot VORTAC 327° radial, extending from the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles northwest of the VORTAC, and within 3.5 miles each side of the Minot VORTAC 097° radial, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 7 miles east of the VORTAC, excluding the portion which overlies the Minot AFB, ND, Class D airspace area.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3.5 miles each side of the Minot VORTAC 129° radial extending from the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles southeast of the VORTAC, and within 3.5 miles each side of the Minot VORTAC 260° radial, extending from the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles west of the VORTAC, and within 3.5 miles each side of the Minot VORTAC 327° radial, extending from the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends the legal description of the Class E airspace area at Rapid City Regional Airport, Rapid City, SD, eliminating the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time status of the Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace designated as an extension, at the airport. This is an administrative change to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Effective 0901 UTC, March 31, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Rapid City Regional Airport, Rapid City, SD.
In a review of the airspace, the FAA found the airspace for Rapid City Regional Airport, Rapid City, SD, as published in FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, does not require part time status. This is an administrative change removing the part time NOTAM information from the legal description for the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and 6004 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by eliminating the NOTAM information that reads, “This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.” from the regulatory text of Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D, at Rapid City Regional Airport, Rapid City, SD.
This is an administrative change amending the description for Rapid City Regional Airport to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database, and does not affect the boundaries, or operating requirements of the airspace; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Within a 4.4-mile radius of the Rapid City Regional Airport, excluding the portion north of a line between the intersection of the Rapid City Regional Airport 4.4-mile radius and the Ellsworth AFB 4.7-mile radius, and that airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.6 miles each side of the Rapid City VORTAC 155°/335°. radials extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the Rapid City Regional Airport to 7 miles southeast of the VORTAC, excluding that airspace within the Rapid City, SD, Class D airspace area.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.6 miles each side of the Rapid City VORTAC 155°/335° radials extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the Rapid City Regional Airport to 7 miles southeast of the VORTAC, excluding that airspace within the Rapid City, SD, Class D airspace area.
Department of State.
Interim final rule.
As a result of this rule, a passport and a visa will be required of a British, French, or Netherlands national, or of a national of Antigua, Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica, or Trinidad and Tobago, who has residence in British, French, or Netherlands territory located in the adjacent islands of the Caribbean area, or has residence in Antigua, Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica, or Trinidad and Tobago, if the alien is proceeding to the United States as an agricultural worker. In light of past experience, and to promote consistency of treatment across H-2A agricultural workers, prudent border management requires these temporary workers to obtain a visa along with most other H-2A agricultural workers.
The previous rule allowing temporary workers from these countries to enter the United States without a visa presented a vulnerability. Temporary workers from these countries now require H-2A visas to enter the United States.
This rule is effective February 19, 2016.
• Interested parties may submit comments at any time by any of the following methods:
•
• If you have access to the Internet you may submit comments by going to
Paul-Anthony L. Magadia, U.S. Department of State, Visa Services, Legislation and Regulations Division, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 485-7641, Email:
The Department of State (the Department) is amending the previous rule to alleviate fraud and security concerns that have developed subsequent to that rule's publication. The previous rule, 22 CFR 41.2(e)(1), allowed nationals of certain Caribbean countries, as well as nationals of certain other countries who have residence in such countries' territories in the Caribbean, to enter the United States as temporary agricultural workers without visas. The amended rule requires that temporary workers from these countries obtain H-2A visas to enter the United States.
Currently, British, French, and Netherlands nationals and nationals of Antigua, Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago, who have their residence in British, French, or Netherlands territory located in the adjacent islands of the Caribbean area or in Antigua, Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica, or Trinidad and Tobago, are not required to obtain visas before traveling to the United States as H-2A agricultural workers.
The amended rule requires these prospective H-2A agricultural workers to obtain a visa prior to traveling to the United States. Any spouses or children of these workers also will have to obtain a visa. To obtain a visa, these nonimmigrant aliens will have to be in possession of a valid passport, submit a visa application to and appear for an interview at a U.S. embassy or consulate, and undergo the Department's visa screening process.
Requiring these prospective H-2A agricultural workers to obtain visas will ensure that they are sufficiently screened prior to arrival in the United States. This will lessen the possibility that persons who pose security risks to the United States and other potential immigration violators may improperly gain admission to the United States. At the same time, requiring that these applicants appear before consular officers will provide greater opportunities to prescreen for potential employment fraud and will promote compliance with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Labor (DOL) H-2A rules.
The Department, in conjunction with DHS, has determined that the visa exemption provided a loophole that could potentially be exploited by terrorists and other persons seeking to engage in unlawful activities in the United States and threatens the security interests of the United States. This visa exemption is outdated in the post-9/11 environment and inconsistent with the visa requirement for other H-2A agricultural workers from other countries. The Department and DHS have determined that eliminating this visa exemption furthers the national security interests of the United States.
The application of the general visa requirement to the class of Caribbean agricultural workers described above will ensure that these applicants for admission, like other H-2A agricultural workers, are properly screened through the Department's visa issuance process prior to arrival in the United States. This will lessen the possibility that persons who pose security risks to the United States and other potential immigration violators may improperly gain admission to the United States.
Moreover, extending the visa requirement to these Caribbean H-2A agricultural workers will better ensure that such workers are protected from certain employment and recruitment-based abuses. It also will ensure that agricultural workers have been informed, and are aware of, their rights and responsibilities before departing from their home countries to engage in H-2A agricultural work.
Redesignated paragraph (e)(2)(iv) is being amended to reflect that The Royal Virgin Islands Police Department has been renamed the Royal Virgin Islands Police Force.
DHS is publishing a parallel amendment to 8 CFR 212.1(b).
The publication of this rule as an interim final rule, with provisions for post-promulgation public comments, is based on the good cause exception found in section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). There is reasonable concern that publication of the rule as a proposed rule, which would permit continuation of the current visa exemption, could lead to an increase in applications for admission in bad faith by persons who would otherwise have been denied visas and are seeking to avoid the visa requirement and consular screening process during the period between the publication of a proposed and a final rule. Accordingly, the Department finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish this rule with prior notice and comment period. Under the good cause exception, this rule is exempt from the notice and comment and delayed effective date requirements of the APA.
In addition, the Department is of the opinion that eliminating the visa exemption and requiring a visa for Caribbean H-2A agricultural workers, and the spouses or children accompanying or following these workers, is a foreign affairs function of the U.S. government. As this rule implements this function, the Department is of the opinion that, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), this rule is exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553, including the notice and comment and 30-day delayed effective date requirements. The Department is nevertheless providing the opportunity for the public to provide comments for 60 days.
Because this interim final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rulemaking regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by state, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121.
The costs of this rulemaking are discussed in the companion DHS rule, RIN 1651-AB09, included elsewhere in this edition of the
The Department has considered this rule in light of Executive Order 13563, dated January 18, 2011, and affirms that this regulation is consistent with the guidance therein.
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government; nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders 12372 and 13132.
The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not pre-empt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.
The Department has reviewed this interim final rule in light of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
This rule does not impose any new information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35. The Department anticipates between 100 and 4,100 additional nonimmigrant visa applicants per year as a result of this rulemaking. The current burden for this information collection (OMB Control No. 1405-0182) is 13,875,345 hours, with 11,100,276 respondents. The burden per response is 75 minutes. The top estimate for the number of additional respondents would add approximately 5,000 hours to a burden that is almost 14 million hours. Therefore, the addition of these respondents does not significantly increase the burden associated with this information collection.
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State is amending 22 CFR part 41 to read as follows:
22 U.S.C. 2651a; 8 U.S.C. 1104; Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
The revisions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) Presents a current certificate issued by the Royal Virgin Islands Police Force indicating that he or she has no criminal record.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final and temporary regulations.
This document contains temporary regulations that provide guidance relating to the allocation by a partnership of creditable foreign tax expenditures. These temporary regulations are necessary to improve the operation of an existing safe harbor rule that is used for determining whether allocations of creditable foreign tax expenditures are deemed to be in accordance with the partners' interests in the partnership. The text of these temporary regulations also serves as the text of the proposed regulations set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-100861-15) published in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the
Suzanne M. Walsh, (202) 317-4908 (not a toll-free call).
Allocations of creditable foreign tax expenditures (“CFTEs”) do not have substantial economic effect, and accordingly a CFTE must be allocated in accordance with the partners' interests in the partnership.
In order to apply the safe harbor, a partnership must (1) determine the partnership's “CFTE categories,” (2) determine the partnership's net income in each CFTE category, and (3) allocate the partnership's CFTEs to each category. Section 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(
Section 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(
In the case of a transfer of a partnership interest that results in an adjustment under section 743(b) (because the partnership has a section 754 election in effect, or because there is a substantial built-in loss (as defined in section 743(d)) in the partnership), the partnership must adjust the basis of partnership property with respect to the transferee partner only (a section 743(b) adjustment). No adjustment is made to the common basis of partnership property, and the section 743(b) adjustment has no effect on the partnership's computation of any item under section 703. § 1.743-1(j)(1).
The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that a transferee partner's section 743(b) adjustment with respect to its interest in a partnership should not be taken into account in computing such partnership's net income in a CFTE category because the basis adjustment is unique to the transferee partner and because the basis adjustment ordinarily would not be taken into account by a foreign jurisdiction in computing its foreign
A partnership that is a transferee partner may have a section 743(b) adjustment in its capacity as a direct or indirect partner in a lower-tier partnership. Under § 1.704-1T(b)(4)(viii)(
No inference is intended from § 1.704-1T(b)(4)(viii)(
For purposes of the safe harbor, § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(
Deductible guaranteed payments under section 707(c) reduce the partnership's net income in a CFTE category. Therefore, in the case of a guaranteed payment that results in a deduction under both U.S. and foreign law, no special rule reducing the partnership's net income in a CFTE category is necessary. However, to the extent that foreign law does
However, the current final regulations do not expressly address situations in which an allocation or distribution of an allocated amount or guaranteed payment gives rise to a deduction for purposes of one foreign tax, but is made out of income subject to another tax imposed by the same or a different foreign jurisdiction. For example, a partnership may make a preferential allocation of gross income that is deductible in the foreign jurisdiction in which the partnership is a resident (foreign jurisdiction X) but that is made out of income earned by a disregarded entity or branch owned by the partnership that is subject to net basis tax in the jurisdiction in which the disregarded entity or branch is located (foreign jurisdiction Y). In this case, the Treasury Department and the IRS are aware that some taxpayers have suggested that § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(
The special rules were not intended to permit taxpayers to adjust or fail to adjust income in a CFTE category in a manner that distorts a partner's share of the income to which the CFTEs assigned to that category relate. Therefore, these temporary regulations revise the special rules to address situations in which allocations (or distributions of allocated amounts) and guaranteed payments that give rise to foreign law deductions are made out of income with related CFTEs. Specifically, § 1.704-1T(b)(4)(viii)(
Similarly, § 1.704-1T(b)(4)(viii)(
Finally, the current final regulations provide that the adjustment to income attributable to an activity for a preferential allocation depends on whether the allocation of the item of income (or payment thereof) “results” in a deduction under foreign law. This rule was intended to apply even if the foreign law deduction occurred in a different taxable year (for example, because the foreign jurisdiction allowed a deduction only upon a subsequent payment of accrued interest). These temporary regulations at § 1.704-1T(b)(4)(viii)(
For taxable years beginning before January 1, 2012, the special rules under § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(
The Treasury Department and the IRS have become aware that some taxpayers claim that the inclusion and subsequent removal of the cross-reference created uncertainty regarding the application of the special rules under § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(
In addition, the Treasury Department and the IRS are aware of transactions involving serial disregarded payments in which taxpayers take the position that withholding taxes assessed on the first payment in a series of back-to-back disregarded payments do not need to be apportioned among the CFTE categories that include the income out of which the payment is made. These regulations include new examples clarifying that under § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(
These regulations make certain organizational and other non-substantive changes that clarify how items of income under U.S. federal income tax law are assigned to an activity and how a partnership's net income in a CFTE category is determined.
For the avoidance of doubt, § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(
These regulations also confirm in § 1.704-1T(b)(4)(viii)(
In order to more clearly explain how the rules for determining a partnership's net income in a CFTE category operate and to assist taxpayers in applying these rules, these temporary regulations reorganize § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(
The current final regulations provide that only items of gross income recognized by a branch for U.S. income tax purposes are taken into account to determine net income attributable to any activity of a branch.
In addition, the current final regulations use the term “distributive share of income,” which has a general meaning under subchapter K but is used for a different purpose under § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(
These temporary regulations apply for partnership taxable years that both begin on or after January 1, 2016, and end after February 4, 2016. The temporary regulations also modify an existing transition rule with respect to certain inter-branch payments for partnerships whose agreements were entered into prior to February 14, 2012. The current transition rule provides that if there has been no material modification to their partnership agreements on or after February 14, 2012, then, for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2012, these partnerships may apply the provisions of §§ 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(
No inference is intended as to the application of the provisions amended by these temporary regulations under current law. The IRS may, where appropriate, challenge transactions, including those described in these temporary regulations and this preamble, under currently applicable Code or regulatory provisions or judicial doctrines.
Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
The principal author of these regulations is Suzanne M. Walsh of the Office of Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b)
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(
(
(
(4) * * *
(viii) * * *
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(5) * * *
[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.704-1T(b)(5)
[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.704-1T(b)(5)
[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.704-1T(b)(5)
(a) through (b)(1)(ii)(
(
(b)(1)(ii)(
(
(b)(1)(iii) through (b)(4)(viii)(
(
(b)(4)(viii)(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(b)(4)(viii)(
(
(b)(4)(viii)(
(i) A contributes $750,000 and B contributes $250,000 to form AB, a country X eligible entity (as defined in § 301.7701-3(a) of this chapter) treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. AB operates business M in country X. Country X imposes a 20 percent tax on the net income from business M, which tax is a CFTE. In 2016, AB earns $300,000 of gross income, has deductible expenses of $100,000, and pays or accrues $40,000 of country X tax. Pursuant to the partnership agreement, the first $100,000 of gross income each year is specially allocated to A as a preferred return on excess capital contributed by A. All remaining partnership items, including CFTEs, are split evenly between A and B (50 percent each). The gross income allocation is not deductible in determining AB's taxable income under country X law. Assume that allocations of all items other than CFTEs are valid.
(ii) AB has a single CFTE category because all of AB's net income is allocated in the same ratio. See paragraph (b)(4)(viii)(
(iii) The facts are the same as in paragraph (i) of this
(iv) The facts are the same as in paragraph (iii) of this
(v) The amount of net income in the single CFTE category of AB for purposes of
(b)(5)
(i) A, B, and C form ABC, an eligible entity (as defined in § 301.7701-3(a) of this chapter) treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. ABC owns three entities, DEX, DEY, and DEZ, which are organized in, and treated as corporations under the laws of, countries X, Y, and Z, respectively, and as disregarded entities for U.S. federal income tax purposes. DEX operates business X in country X, DEY operates business Y in country Y, and DEZ operates business Z in country Z. Businesses X, Y, and Z relate to the licensing and sublicensing of intellectual property owned by DEZ. During 2016, DEX earns $100,000 of royalty income from unrelated payors on which it pays no withholding taxes. Country X imposes a 30 percent tax on DEX's net income. DEX makes royalty payments of $90,000 during 2016 to DEY that are deductible by DEX for country X purposes and subject to a 10 percent withholding tax imposed by country X. DEY earns no other income in 2016. Country Y does not impose income or withholding taxes. DEY makes royalty payments of $80,000 during 2016 to DEZ. DEZ earns no other income in 2016. Country Z does not impose income or withholding taxes. The royalty payments from DEX to DEY and from DEY to DEZ are disregarded for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
As a result of these payments, DEX has taxable income of $10,000 for country X purposes on which $3,000 of taxes are imposed, and DEY has $90,000 of income for country X withholding tax purposes on which $9,000 of withholding taxes are imposed. Pursuant to the partnership agreement, all partnership items from business X, excluding CFTEs paid or accrued by business X, are allocated 80 percent to A and 10 percent each to B and C. All partnership items from business Y, excluding CFTEs paid or accrued by business Y, are allocated 80 percent to B and 10 percent each to A and C. All partnership items from business Z, excluding CFTEs paid or accrued by business Z, are allocated 80 percent to C and 10 percent each to A and B. Because only business X has items that are regarded for U.S. federal income tax purposes (the $100,000 of royalty income), only business X has partnership items. Accordingly A is allocated 80 percent of the income from business X ($80,000) and B and C are each allocated 10 percent of the income from business X ($10,000 each). There are no partnership items of income from business Y or Z to allocate.
(ii) Because the partnership agreement provides for different allocations of partnership net income attributable to businesses X, Y, and Z, the net income attributable to each of businesses X, Y, and Z is income in separate CFTE categories. See paragraph (b)(4)(viii)(
(i) Assume that the facts are the same as in paragraph (i) of
(ii) In order to prevent separating the CFTEs from the related foreign income, the special allocations of the $10,000 and $80,000 treated under the partnership agreement as attributable to the business Y and the business Z activities, respectively, which do not follow the allocation ratios that otherwise apply under the partnership agreement to items of income in the business X activity, are treated as divisible parts of the business X activity and, therefore, as separate activities. See paragraph (b)(4)(viii)(
(c) through (e) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.704-1(c) through (e).
(f)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Bridge across the Columbia River, mile 105.6, at Vancouver, WA. This deviation is necessary to accommodate maintenance to replace movable rail joints. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position during maintenance activities.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on March 8, 2016, to 7 p.m. on March 17, 2016.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0076] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email
BNSF requested that the BNSF Swing Bridge across the Columbia River, mile 105.6, remain closed to vessel traffic to remove and replace rail joints. During this installation period, the swing span of the bridge will be in the closed-to-navigation position; however, the span may be opened for maritime emergencies, but any emergency opening will necessitate a time extension to the approved dates. The BNSF Swing Bridge, mile 105.6, provides 39 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0 while in the closed position. The current operations for the swing bridge is in 33 CFR 117.5. This deviation allows the swing span of the BNSF Railway Bridge across the Columbia River, mile 105.6, to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not open for maritime traffic from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on March 8, March 10, March 15, March 16 and March 17, 2016. These dates coincide with the Columbia River Bonneville lock and the Dalles lock. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.5 at all other times. Waterway usage on this part of the Columbia River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and tow vessels to recreational pleasure craft including cabin cruisers and sailing vessels.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at anytime. For the duration of the repair work, vessels will not be allowed to pass through the bridge. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The bridge can be opened for emergency vessels in response to a call, however, if an opening for emergencies is needed, an extension of this deviation will be required to complete the work. No immediate alternate route for vessels to pass is available on this part of the river.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the James River Bridge (US17) across the James River, mile 5.0, at Isle of Wight and Newport News, VA. The deviation is necessary to perform bridge maintenance and repairs.
This deviation is effective from 5 a.m. on February 7, 2016 to 7 p.m. on February 14, 2016.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0057] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6222, email
The Virginia Department of Transportation, that owns and operates the James River Bridge (US17), has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to perform repairs to the aerial electrical cable connecting the north tower to the south tower. The bridge is a vertical lift draw bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 60 feet above mean high water.
The current operating schedule is open on signal as set out in 33 CFR 117.5. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-
The James River is used by a variety of vessels including deep draft ocean-going vessels, U.S. government vessels, small commercial vessels, recreational vessels and tug and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transit to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Administration for Community Living (ACL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Interim final rule.
This rule implements a provision enacted by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 and reflects the transfer of the State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the Administration for Community Living (ACL) in HHS. The previous regulations were issued by CMS under the authority granted by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA `90), Section 4360.
You may submit comments in one of following ways (no duplicates, please): Written comments may be submitted through any of the methods specified below. Please do not submit duplicate comments.
•
•
•
Josh Hodges, Administration for Community Living, telephone (202) 795-7364 (Voice). This is not a toll-free number. This document will be made available in alternative formats upon request. Written correspondence can be sent to Administration for Community Living, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 330 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20201.
The State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) was created under Section 4360 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508). This section of the law authorized the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to make grants to States to establish and maintain health insurance advisory service programs for Medicare beneficiaries. Grant funds were made available to support information, counseling, and assistance activities relating to Medicare, Medicaid, and other related health insurance options such as: Medicare supplement insurance, long-term care insurance, managed care options, and other health insurance benefit information. In January 2014, authorized in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, the SHIP program was transferred from CMS to the Administration for Community Living (ACL). This transfer reflects the existing formal and informal collaborations between the SHIP programs and the networks that ACL serves.
In this interim final rule, ACL transfers all provisions of the existing SHIP regulations at 42 CFR part 403 subpart E, §§ 403.500-403.512, to a new part at 45 CFR 1331.1-1331.7, and 42 CFR part 403 subpart E is reserved. This transfer positions the regulations governing the SHIP program alongside the other ACL regulations, reflecting the transfer of the program to ACL's administration.
In addition, as Congress has transferred the entirety of the SHIP program to ACL, all references to CMS' administration of the program are changed in this rule to ACL.
Finally, as HHS has promulgated new Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards, codified at 45 CFR part 75 since the previous rule's implementation, this rule changes a reference to previous guidance in § 1331.7 Administration.
This rule is not being treated as a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
The Secretary certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Ch. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1) (PRA), ACL and CMS have determined that there are no new collections of information contained in this interim final rule.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), ACL and CMS are required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed regulations prior to establishing a final rule unless it is determined for good cause that the notice and comment procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b). As noted previously, Congress has already transferred the SHIP program to ACL under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. This interim final rule makes no changes other than aligning the location of the regulations within the
Agencies are required to delay the effective date of their final regulations by 30 days after publication, as required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), unless an exception under subsection (d) applies. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), ACL and CMS may waive the delayed effective date requirement if they find good cause and explain the basis for the waiver in the final rulemaking document or if the regulations grant or recognize an exemption or relieve a restriction.
In the present case, there is good cause to waive the delayed effective date for this interim final rule, because the substance of the regulation, other than the name of the administering agency, is identical to the current regulation.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that a covered agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million, adjusted for inflation, or more in any one year. ACL and CMS have determined that this rule does not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal government in the aggregate or by the private sector of more than $100 million in any one year.
This rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. Section 804(2).
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to determine whether a policy or regulation may affect family well-being. If the agency's conclusion is affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. These regulations do not have an impact on family well-being as defined in the legislation.
Executive Order 13132 on “federalism” was signed August 4, 1999. The purposes of the Order are: “. . . to guarantee the division of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the States that was intended by the Framers of the Constitution, to ensure that the principles of federalism established by the Framers guide the executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, and to further the policies of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act . . .” Executive Order 13132 applies to actions with federalism implications, which are actions that have substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For actions that have federalism implications and preempt state law or have federalism implications and impose substantial compliance costs on states and local governments, the agency must consult with state and local officials before publishing the rule and include a federalism statement in the preamble.
The Department certifies that this rule does not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
ACL and CMS are not aware of any specific state laws that would be preempted by the adoption of the regulation.
Grant programs, Health insurance, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs, Health insurance, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS, and Department of Health and Human Services amend title 42, chapter IV and title 45, chapter XIII, subchapter C, of the Code of Federal Regulations, respectively, as follows:
42 U.S.C. 1395b-3 and Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh).
42 U.S.C. 1395b-4.
(a)
(b)
(1) Conditions of eligibility for the grant.
(2) Minimum levels of funding for those States qualifying for the grants.
(3) Reporting requirements.
(c)
To be eligible for a grant under this subpart, the State must have an approved Medicare supplemental regulatory program under section 1882 of the Act and submit a timely application to ACL that meets the requirements of—
(a) Section 4360 of Public Law 101-508 (42 U.S.C. 1395b-4);
(b) This subpart; and
(c) The applicable solicitation for grant applications issued by ACL.
ACL awards grants to States subject to availability of funds, and if applicable, subject to the satisfactory progress in the State's project during the preceding grant period. The criteria by which progress is evaluated and the performance standards for determining whether satisfactory progress has been made are specified in the terms and conditions included in the notice of grant award sent to each State. ACL advises each State as to when to make application, what to include in the application, and provides information as to the timing of the grant award and the duration of the grant award. ACL also provides an estimate of the amount of funds that may be available to the State.
(a)
(1) New program grants.
(2) Existing program enhancement grants.
(b)
(1) A fixed portion is awarded to States in the following amounts:
(i) Each of the 50 States, $75,000.
(ii) The District of Columbia, $75,000.
(iii) Puerto Rico, $75,000.
(iv) American Samoa, $25,000.
(v) Guam, $25,000.
(vi) The Virgin Islands, $25,000.
(2) A variable portion which is based on the number and location of Medicare beneficiaries residing in the State is awarded to each State. The variable amount a particular State receives is determined as set forth in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c)
(i) The amount of available funds, and
(ii) A comparison of each State with the average of all of the States (except the State being compared) with respect to three factors that relate to the size of the State's Medicare population and where that population resides.
(2) The factors ACL uses to compare States' Medicare populations comprise separate components of the variable amount. These factors, and the extent to which they each contribute to the variable amount, are as follows:
(i) Approximately 75 percent of the variable amount is based on the number of Medicare beneficiaries living in the State as a percentage of all Medicare beneficiaries nationwide.
(ii) Approximately 10 percent of the variable amount is based on the percentage of the State's total population who are Medicare beneficiaries.
(iii) Approximately 15 percent of the variable amount is based on the percentage of the State's Medicare beneficiaries that reside in rural areas (“rural areas” are defined as all areas not included within a metropolitan Statistical Area).
(3) Based on the foregoing four factors (that is, the amount of available funds and the three comparative factors), ACL determines a variable rate for each participating State for each grant period.
(d)
(a)
(b)
(1) Must not use the grant to supplant funds for activities that were conducted immediately preceding the date of the initial award of a grant made under this subpart and funded through other sources (including in-kind contributions).
(2) Must maintain the activities of the program at least at the level that those activities were conducted immediately preceding the initial award of a grant made under this subpart.
A State that receives a grant under this subpart must submit at least one annual report to ACL and any additional reports as ACL may prescribe in the notice of grant award. ACL advises the State of the requirements concerning the frequency, timing, and contents of reports in the notice of grant award that it sends to the State.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with the Commission's
The amendments to 47 CFR 52.15(g)(2) and (g)(3) published at 80 FR 66454, October 29, 2015, are effective February 4, 2016.
Marilyn Jones, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-1580, or email:
This document announces that, on January 5, 2016, OMB approved the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on January 5, 2016, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR 52.15(g)(2)-(g)(3).
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1214.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Commission adopts additional rules under the authority of Sections 204 and 205 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), which mandate the accessibility of user interfaces on digital apparatus and navigation devices used to view video programming. First, the document adopts usability requirements for entities covered by Section 204 of the CVAA and information, documentation, and training requirements for entities covered by both Section 204 and Section 205 of the CVAA. The document also adopts rules that will require manufacturers of digital apparatus and navigation devices to publicize the availability of accessible devices on manufacturer Web sites that must be accessible to those with disabilities. These requirements will ensure that individuals with disabilities have access to information and documentation about the availability of accessible video devices and how to operate them. The document declines to adopt a requirement that multichannel video programming providers include more detailed program information for public, educational, and governmental channels in their video programming guides, finding that such a requirement is outside the scope of Section 205 of the CVAA. Finally, the document reconsiders guidance on which activation mechanisms for closed captioning are reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon.
Effective March 7, 2016, except for §§ 79.107(a)(5), (d), and (e) and 79.108(d)(2) and (f), which contain information collection requirements subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission will publish a document in the
Maria Mullarkey,
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. In October 2013, the Commission adopted rules that advance the important goal of making video programming accessible to individuals with disabilities on a wide range of consumer devices, allowing consumers who are blind or visually impaired and deaf or hard of hearing to more fully enjoy the benefits of such programming. In this
2. This
3. Addressing a Petition for Reconsideration filed by several consumer and academic organizations,
4. Among the CVAA's mandates is a requirement that the Commission adopt rules to ensure the accessibility of the user interfaces and video programming guides and menus for digital apparatus and navigation devices.
5.
6. Relying on the existing definition of usability in Section 6.3(l), we require manufacturers of Section 204 digital apparatus to ensure that individuals with disabilities have access to information and documentation on the full functionalities of digital apparatus, including instructions, product information (including accessible feature information), documentation, bills, and technical support which are provided to individuals without disabilities.
7. In addition to implementing the usability requirement of Section 204, we also adopt information, documentation, and training requirements consistent with those set forth in Section 6.11 of our rules. As noted in the
8. We disagree with the argument made by CEA and DISH Network L.L.C./EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. (“DISH/EchoStar”) that imposing information, documentation, and training requirements will be redundant with the usability requirements in Section 6.3(l) that we adopt herein.
9.
10. We find that Section 205 of the CVAA provides the Commission with sufficient authority to adopt information, documentation, and training requirements. CEA, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (“NCTA”), and the American Cable Association (“ACA”) point out that Section 205 does not include the Section 204 “accessible to and usable by” language that the Commission has relied upon in the past to adopt information, documentation, and training requirements and, therefore, they question the Commission's statutory authority to adopt such requirements in the Section 205 context.
11. Further, we disagree with CEA, NCTA, and DISH/EchoStar's argument that information, documentation, and training requirements will not be necessary because Section 205 navigation devices are provided upon request and the notification requirements already adopted under Section 205 in the
12.
13.
14. We adopt the
15. Pursuant to Section 205(b)(1) of the CVAA, we require equipment manufacturers subject to Section 205 to inform consumers about the availability of audibly accessible devices and accessibility solutions by prominently displaying accessibility information on their official Web sites, such as through a link on their home page.
16. Device manufacturers that produce Section 204 digital apparatus will also be required to provide prominent notification about the availability of accessible devices on their official Web sites as is required for Section 205 navigation devices. In the
17. We disagree with CEA's contention that adopting the definition of “usable” for Section 204 devices obviates the need for any additional notification requirements for digital apparatus.
18. We decline to impose labeling requirements or other point of sale notifications for navigation devices or digital apparatus at this time, but we emphasize that entities covered by Sections 204 and 205 of the CVAA are required to provide information about the accessibility features of devices, including information about how to access closed captioning controls and settings, as part of the information, documentation, and training requirements that we adopt herein. The
19. We agree with Consumer/Academic Groups that it is important that consumers with disabilities be provided with information about the accessibility features of digital apparatus and navigation devices. The Section 6.3(l) usability and Section 6.11 information and documentation requirements adopted by the Commission here require covered entities to provide consumers with such information. Pursuant to the usability requirements we adopt here, manufacturers subject to Section 204 of the CVAA must provide access to information and documentation on the full functionalities of digital apparatus, including instructions, product information (
20. Consumer/Academic Groups support requiring manufacturers to provide not just Web site notifications about the availability of accessible devices and the contact information for requesting accessible devices, but also Web site information “explaining the accessibility of their devices and how to access important accessibility features such as the closed captioning control and display settings.”
21. In addition, Consumer/Academic Groups request a central Web site, similar to the Commission's Accessibility Clearinghouse,
22. Just as we require for manufacturers of Section 204 and 205 devices, we require MVPDs to ensure that the contact office or person listed on their Web site is able to answer both general and specific questions about the availability of accessible equipment, including, if necessary, providing information to consumers or directing consumers to a place where they can locate information about how to activate and use accessibility features. This new requirement is in addition to the two existing notification requirements for MVPDs that the Commission adopted in the
23. MVPD commenters argue that it would be premature to impose additional notification requirements for MVPDs without first observing the efficacy of the notification requirements
24. We decline to adopt a requirement that MVPDs include more detailed program information for public, educational, and governmental (“PEG”) channels in their video programming guides. In the
25. We find that requiring MVPDs to include particular information in program guides is beyond the scope of Section 205 of the CVAA. In particular, we disagree with ACD's and Montgomery County's argument that the requirement to make on-screen text menus and guides on navigation devices audibly accessible gives the Commission authority to determine whether the substantive information provided in program guides is adequate and to require that particular information be included. As we stated in the
26. In response to Consumer/Academic Groups Petition,
27. On reconsideration, we find that closed captioning activation mechanisms that rely
28. The Consumer/Academic Groups Petition submits that “many” deaf and hard of hearing people, especially those who communicate using American Sign Language, “do not speak or speak clearly enough to use speech recognition technology.”
29. While some opposing the Consumer/Academic Groups Petition express concern about the Commission prohibiting the use of voice controls to achieve accessibility,
30. With respect to gesture control, we decline to reconsider our finding that gesture control that is simple and easy to use will be considered a compliant activation mechanism for closed captioning and video description under Sections 204 and 205.
31. Industry commenters contend that gestures are likely to be one of multiple methods for activating accessibility features,
32. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) was incorporated in the
33. Pursuant to the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (“CVAA”), the
34.
35. No comments were filed in response to the IRFA.
36. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
37. 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 rules adopted in the
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46. In addition, the SBA's placement of Cable Television Distribution Services in the category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is applicable to cable-based Educational Broadcasting Services. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for small wireline businesses. This category is defined as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52. In this section, we describe the reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements adopted in the
53.
54.
55. Second, the
56. Third, the
57.
58. The
59. The
60. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed 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 or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. The
61. The rules adopted in this
62. In formulating the final rules, however, the Commission has considered a number of methods to minimize the economic impact on small entities. With regard to the usability and information, documentation, and training requirements modeled on Sections 6.3(l) and 6.11, the
63. The
64. Further, MVPD operators with 400,000 or fewer subscribers as of year-end 2012, and MVPD systems with 20,000 or fewer subscribers that are not affiliated with an operator serving more than 10 percent of all MVPD subscribers as of year-end 2012, were afforded with a two-year delay of the compliance deadline for the requirements adopted pursuant to Section 205 of the CVAA, and this deadline also applies to the rules adopted in the
65. Overall, we believe we have appropriately considered both the interests of individuals with disabilities and the interests of the entities who will be subject to the rules, including those that are smaller entities, consistent with Congress' goal to “update the communications laws to help ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to fully utilize communications services and equipment and better access video programming.”
66. The Commission will send a copy of the
67. The
68. The Commission will send a copy of the
69. We remind interested parties that this proceeding is treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
70. Accordingly,
71.
72.
73.
74.
Cable television operators, Communications equipment, Multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), Satellite television service providers.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 79 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 303, 307, 309, 310, 330, 544a, 613, 617.
(a)(1) * * *
(5) As used in this section, the term “usable” shall mean that individuals with disabilities have access to information and documentation on the full functionalities of digital apparatus, including instructions, product information (including accessible feature information), documentation, bills, and technical support which are provided to individuals without disabilities.
(d)(1)
(i) Providing a description of the accessibility and compatibility features of the product upon request, including, as needed, in alternate formats or alternate modes at no additional charge;
(ii) Providing end-user product documentation in alternate formats or alternate modes upon request at no additional charge; and
(iii) Ensuring usable customer support and technical support in the call centers and service centers which support their products at no additional charge.
(2) Manufacturers of digital apparatus shall include in general product information the contact method for obtaining the information required by paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(3) In developing, or incorporating existing training programs, manufacturers of digital apparatus shall consider the following topics:
(i) Accessibility requirements of individuals with disabilities;
(ii) Means of communicating with individuals with disabilities;
(iii) Commonly used adaptive technology used with the manufacturer's products;
(iv) Designing for accessibility; and
(v) Solutions for accessibility and compatibility.
(e)
(d)(1)
(i) When providing information about equipment options in response to a consumer inquiry about service, accessibility, or other issues, MVPDs must clearly and conspicuously inform consumers about the availability of accessible navigation devices.
(ii) MVPDs must provide notice on their official Web sites about the availability of accessible navigation devices. MVPDs must prominently display information about accessible navigation devices and separate solutions on their Web sites in a way that makes such information available to all current and potential subscribers. The notice must publicize the availability of accessible devices and separate solutions and explain the means for making requests for accessible equipment and the specific person, office or entity to whom such requests are to be made. The contact office or person listed on the Web site must be able to answer both general and specific questions about the availability of accessible equipment, including, if necessary, providing information to consumers or directing consumers to a place where they can locate information about how to activate and use accessibility features. All information required by this section must be provided in a Web site format that is accessible to people with disabilities.
(2)
(f)(1)
(i) Providing a description of the accessibility and compatibility features of the product upon request, including, as needed, in alternate formats or alternate modes at no additional charge;
(ii) Providing end-user product documentation in alternate formats or alternate modes upon request at no additional charge; and
(iii) Ensuring usable customer support and technical support in the call centers and service centers which support their products at no additional charge.
(2) MVPDs and manufacturers of navigation devices shall include in general product information the contact method for obtaining the information required by paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(3) In developing, or incorporating existing training programs, MVPDs and manufacturers of navigation devices shall consider the following topics:
(i) Accessibility requirements of individuals with disabilities;
(ii) Means of communicating with individuals with disabilities;
(iii) Commonly used adaptive technology used with the manufacturer's products;
(iv) Designing for accessibility; and
(v) Solutions for accessibility and compatibility.
(4) If a consumer with a disability requests an accessible navigation device pursuant to Section 205, this also constitutes a request for a description of the accessibility features of the device and end-user product documentation in accessible formats.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT) is updating its regulations governing the organization of NHTSA and delegations of authority from the Administrator to Agency officials, to provide for a reorganization of the Agency's internal structure. These changes will enable NHTSA to achieve its mission more effectively and efficiently.
This rule is effective February 4, 2016.
Mr. Russell Krupen, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-1834.
This final rule amends 49 CFR part 501, the chapter of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that sets forth the organization of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and delegations of authority from the NHTSA Administrator to other Agency officials, to reflect a reorganization of the Agency's internal structure, to update out-of-date information, and to improve accuracy and clarity. In addition, this rule amends the succession to the Administrator to conform to the new organizational structure. These changes will enable the Agency to achieve its mission more effectively and efficiently.
In particular, NHTSA is eliminating the Senior Associate Administrator positions that were created in 2002 (67 FR 44083) from its internal organization and adding the Executive Director and the Chief Financial Officer positions, as well as their functions and responsibilities. Conforming changes to the regulations, including descriptions of the Associate Administrator positions, succession to the Administrator, and delegations of authority, are included. Additional changes have been made to improve formatting and consistency throughout part 501.
The amendments in this final rule relate solely to changes in the organizational structure and the placement of the delegations of authority for various functions within the agency. This final rule does not impose substantive requirements on the public. It is ministerial in nature and relates only to Agency management, organization, procedure, and practice. Therefore, the Agency has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary and that the rule is exempt from prior notice and comment requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). As these changes will not have a substantive impact on the public, the Agency does not expect to receive significant comments on the substance of the rule. Therefore, the Agency finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
NHTSA has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034). It was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. There are no costs associated with this rule.
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This final rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the consultation requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) does not require a written statement for this final rule because the rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, or the private sector, exceeding the threshold set forth in 2 U.S.C. 1532(a).
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies).
For the reasons stated in the preamble, NHTSA revises 49 CFR part 501 to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 105 and 322, and delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.95.
This part describes the organization of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an operating administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation, and provides for the performance of duties imposed on, and the exercise of powers vested in, the Administrator of NHTSA.
The responsibilities and authorities delegated to NHTSA and the Administrator are set forth in §§ 1.81, 1.94, and 1.95 of this title.
NHTSA consists of a headquarters organization located in Washington, DC, a unified field organization consisting of ten geographic regions with a Regional Office located in each region, the Vehicle Research and Test Center located in East Liberty, Ohio, and the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Test Facility located in San Angelo, Texas. The organization of, and general spheres of responsibility within, NHTSA are as follows:
(a)
(ii) Establishes NHTSA program policies, objectives, and priorities and directs the development of action plans to accomplish the NHTSA mission;
(iii) Directs, controls, and evaluates the organization, program activities, performance of NHTSA staff, program and field offices;
(iv) Approves broad legislative, budgetary, fiscal and program proposals and plans; and
(v) Takes management actions of major significance, such as those relating to changes in basic organizational structure, appointment of key personnel, allocation of resources, and matters of special political or public interest or sensitivity.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(a) The Deputy Administrator is the “first assistant” to the Administrator for purposes of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d) and shall, in the event the Administrator dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office, serve as the Acting Administrator, subject to the limitations established by law.
(b) In the event both the Administrator and the Deputy Administrator die, resign, and/or are otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of their respective offices, or in the event that both positions are vacant, the following officials, subject to paragraph (c) and in the order indicated, shall serve as Acting Deputy Administrator and shall perform the functions and duties of the Administrator, except for any non-delegable statutory and/or regulatory functions and duties:
(1) The Chief Counsel;
(2) The Executive Director;
(3) Further officials as may be designated in an internal order on succession.
(c) In order to qualify for the line of succession, officials must be encumbered in their position on a permanent basis.
(a) All authorities lawfully vested in and reserved to the Administrator in this title, part, or other NHTSA regulation or directive may be exercised by the Deputy Administrator and, in the absence or disability of both officials, by the Chief Counsel, unless specifically prohibited by statute, regulation, or order.
(b) In exercising the powers and performing the duties delegated by this part, officers of NHTSA and their delegates are governed by applicable laws, executive orders, regulations, and other directives, and by policies, objectives, plans, standards, procedures, and limitations as may be issued from time to time by or on behalf of the Secretary of Transportation, the Administrator, the Deputy Administrator, the Chief Counsel, and the Executive Director or, with respect to matters under their jurisdiction, by or on behalf of the Associate Administrators, the Regional Administrators, and the Directors of Staff Offices.
(c) Each officer to whom authority is delegated by this part may redelegate and authorize successive redelegations of that authority subject to any conditions the officer prescribes.
(d) Each officer to whom authority is delegated will administer and perform the functions described in the officer's respective functional statements.
The authorities reserved to the Secretary of Transportation are set forth in § 1.21 of this title.
The delegations of authority in this part do not extend to the following authority, which is reserved to the Administrator, except when exercised pursuant to §§ 501.4 and 501.5(a):
(a) The authority under 23 U.S.C. chapter 4 (except section 403) and any uncodified provision of law to apportion authorization amounts and distribute obligation limitations or award grants to States for highway safety programs or other highway safety purposes;
(b) The authority to issue, amend, or revoke uniform State highway safety guidelines and rules identifying highly effective highway safety programs under 23 U.S.C. 402;
(c) The authority to fix the rate of compensation for non-government members of agency sponsored committees which are entitled to compensation.
(d) The authority under 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 to:
(1) Issue, amend, or revoke final Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations;
(2) Make final decisions concerning alleged safety-related defects and noncompliances with Federal motor vehicle safety standards;
(3) Grant or renew temporary exemptions from Federal motor vehicle safety standards; and
(4) Grant or deny appeals from determinations upon a manufacturer's petition for decision of inconsequential defect or noncompliance and exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 in connection with a defect or noncompliance.
(e) The authority under 49 U.S.C. chapters 303, 321, 323, 325, and 329 (except section 32916(b)) to:
(1) Issue, amend, or revoke final rules and regulations; and
(2) Assess civil penalties and approve manufacturer fuel economy credit plans under chapter 329.
(f) The authority to carry out, in coordination with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator, the authority vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. chapter 311 subchapter III, to promulgate safety standards for commercial motor vehicles and equipment subsequent to initial manufacture when the standards are based upon and similar to a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard promulgated, either simultaneously or previously, under 49 U.S.C. chapter 301.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Serve as the Director of Equal Employment Opportunity.
(2) Serve as the compliance coordinator for:
(i) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d
(ii) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
(iii) The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and
(iv) Other nondiscrimination statutes, regulations, Executive Orders, and policies.
(3) Investigate complaints of civil rights discrimination, conduct compliance reviews, and provide technical assistance to recipients of NHTSA financial assistance and stakeholders.
(4) Review and evaluate the civil rights programs of State Department of Motor Vehicles and Highway Safety Offices to ensure that recipients of NHTSA financial assistance meet applicable Federal civil rights requirements.
(d)
(1) Exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Administrator with respect to:
(i) Issuing odometer regulations authorized under 49 U.S.C. chapter 327.
(ii) Providing technical assistance and granting extensions of time to the states under 49 U.S.C. 32705.
(iii) Granting or denying petitions for approval of alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements under 49 U.S.C. 32705.
(2) Establish the legal sufficiency of all investigations and enforcement actions conducted under the authority of 49 U.S.C. chapters 301, 303, 321, 323, 325, 327, 329 and 331; to make an initial penalty demand based on a violations of any of these chapters; and to compromise:
(i) Any civil penalty imposed under 49 U.S.C. 30165 in an amount of $1,000,000 or less.
(ii) Any civil penalty or monetary settlement other than those imposed under 49 U.S.C. 30165 in an amount of $100,000 or less.
(3) Exercise the powers of the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 30166(c), (g), (h), (i), and (k).
(4) Issue subpoenas, after notice to the Administrator, for the attendance of witnesses and production of documents pursuant to 49 U.S.C. chapters 301, 321, 323, 325, 327, 329 and 331.
(5) Issue authoritative interpretations of the statutes administered by NHTSA and the regulations issued by the agency.
(6) Administer 5 U.S.C. 552 (FOIA) and 49 CFR part 7 (Public Availability of Information) in connection with the records of NHTSA.
(7) Administer the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and 49 CFR part 10 (Maintenance of and Access to Records Pertaining to Individuals) in connection with the records of NHTSA.
(8) Carry out the functions and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary for 23 U.S.C. 313 (Buy America), with respect to matters within the primary responsibility of NHTSA.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.95.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board).
Proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
On November 30, 2015, the Board published in the
Due to the range and complexity of the issues addressed in the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Board has determined that an extension of the public comment period until February 19, 2016, is appropriate. This action will allow interested persons additional time to analyze the notice and prepare their comments.
The comment period for the proposed rule published on November 30, 2015 (80 FR 74925), is extended. Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before February 19, 2016.
You may submit comments by any of the methods identified in the notice of proposed rulemaking.
Constance M. Horsley, Assistant Director, (202) 452-5239, Thomas Boemio, Senior Project Manager, (202) 452-2982, Juan C. Climent, Manager, (202) 872-7526, Felton Booker, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 912-4651, Sean Healey, Senior Financial Analyst, (202) 912-4611, or Mark Savignac, Senior Financial Analyst, (202) 475-7606, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation; or Laurie Schaffer, Associate General Counsel, (202) 452-2272, Benjamin McDonough, Special Counsel, (202) 452-2036, Jay Schwarz, Senior Counsel, (202) 452-2970, Will Giles, Counsel, (202) 452-3351, Mark Buresh, Senior Attorney, (202) 452-5270, or Greg Frischmann, Senior Attorney, (202) 452-2803, Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551. For the hearing impaired only, Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869.
On November 30, 2015, the Board published in the
In recognition of the complexities of the issues involved and the variety of considerations involved in its impact and implementation, the Board requested that commenters respond to numerous questions. The proposed rule stated that the public comment period would close on February 1, 2016.
The Board has received a request from the public for an extension of the comment period to allow for additional time for comments related to the provisions of the proposed rule.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-1000T gliders equipped with a Solo Kleinmotoren Model 2350 C engine that would revise AD 2015-09-04. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as engine shaft failure and consequent propeller detachment. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 21, 2016.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH, Postfach 600152, 71050 Sindelfingen, Germany; telephone: +49 7031 301-0; fax: +49 7031 301-136; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On April 22, 2015, we issued AD 2015-09-04, Amendment 39-18150 (80 FR 25591, May 5, 2015). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-1000T gliders equipped with a Solo Kleinmotoren Model 2350 C engine and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country.
Since we issued AD 2015-09-04, Amendment 39-18150 (80 FR 25591, May 5, 2015), new service information has been issued that includes procedures for replacement of excenter axle-pulley assembly and installation of an elastomeric damper element between the propeller and upper pulley. This optional modification will allow resuming engine operation.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2015-0052R1, dated November 19, 2015 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct the above-referenced unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
An occurrence of engine shaft failure and consequent propeller detachment was reported on a Solo 2350 C engine.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to additional cases of release of the propeller from the engine, possibly resulting in damage to the sailplane, or injury to persons on the ground.
To address this unsafe condition, EASA issued Emergency AD 2013-0217-E to prohibit operation of the engine. That AD was later revised to introduce an optional modification, through Solo Kleinmotoren Service Bulletin (SB) 4603-14, to install a modified excenter axle-pulley assembly, allowing to resume operation of the engine.
Since EASA AD 2013-0217R1 was issued, another occurrence of engine shaft failure and propeller detachment was reported on a Solo 2350 C engine which had been modified in accordance with Solo Kleinmotoren SB 4603-14.
Consequently, EASA issued Emergency AD 2015-0052-E, which superseded AD 2013-0217R1, to prohibit operation of all Solo 2350 C engines, including those engines which had been modified in accordance with Solo Kleinmotoren SB 4603-14. That AD also required a one-time inspection of the propeller shaft to detect cracks and the reporting of findings.
Since that AD was issued, Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH developed modification drawing nb. 2031211-V2 available for in service application through Solo SB 4603-17 and DG Flugzeugbau GmbH developed modifications drawing nb. 10 M 067, available for in service application through DG Flugzeugbau Technical Note (TN) 1000/26 which include replacement of excenter axle-pulley assembly and installation of an elastomeric damper element between the propeller and upper pulley.
This AD is revised to introduce optional modifications to allow resuming operation of an engine.
You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
We reviewed Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Anleitung zur Inspektion (English translation: Inspection Instruction), Nr. 4603-1, Ausgabe (English translation: Dated) March 26, 2015; Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Technische Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin) Nr. 4603-17, Ausgabe (English translation: Dated) July 15, 2015; and DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical note No. 1000/26, dated September 23, 2015, with 10M072 titled Propellermontage nach TM 1000-26 (English translation: Propeller assembly TN 1000-26), dated July 14, 2015. Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Anleitung zur Inspektion (English translation: Inspection Instruction), Nr. 4603-1, Ausgabe (English translation: Dated) March 26, 2015, describes procedures for inspecting the propeller shaft for cracking and reporting the results to the manufacturer. Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Techniseche Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin) Nr. 4603-17, Ausgabe (English translation: Dated) July 15, 2015, describes procedures for replacement of the excenter axle-pulley assembly. DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical note No. 1000/26, dated September 23, 2015, describes procedures for removing the excenter axle-pulley assembly and sending it to Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH for modification with a new rear bearing, axle, and elastomeric damper element. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 2 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about .5 work-hour per product to comply with the basic operational limitation requirement of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this portion of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $85, or $42.50 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about 1.5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic axle inspection (remove, inspect, and reinstall) requirement of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this portion of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $255, or $127.50 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the optional axle with drive belt pulley unit replacement and engine test run of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $100 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this optional proposed AD action on U.S. operators to be $540, or $270 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about .5 work-hour per product to comply with the removal of the operational limitation requirement after doing the optional replacement of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD action on U.S. operators to be $85, or $42.50 per product.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by March 21, 2016.
This AD replaces AD 2015-09-04, Amendment 39-18150 (80 FR 25591, May 5, 2015) (“AD 2015-09-04”).
This AD applies to DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-1000T gliders, all serial numbers, that are:
(1) Equipped with a Solo Kleinmotoren Model 2350 C engine; and
(2) Certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 72: Engine.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as engine shaft failure with consequent propeller detachment. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the engine shaft with consequent propeller detachment, which could result in damage to the glider or injury of persons on the ground.
Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1) As of November 25, 2013 (the effective date retained from AD 2013-22-14, Amendment 39-17646 (78 FR 65869, November 4, 2013)), do not operate the engine unless the engine is modified following instructions that are FAA-approved specifically for this AD.
(2) Modification of an engine following the instructions in Solo Kleinmotoren Service Bulletin 4603-14, dated April 28, 2014, is not an acceptable modification to comply with paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
(3) As of May 26, 2015 (the effective date retained from AD 2015-09-04), place a copy of this AD into the Limitations section of the aircraft flight manual (AFM).
(4) Within the next 30 days after May 26, 2015 (the effective date retained from AD 2015-09-04), do a one-time inspection (magnetic particle or dye penetrant) of the propeller shaft following Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Anleitung zur Inspektion (English translation: Inspection Instruction), Nr. 4603-1, Ausgabe (English translation: Dated) March 26, 2015.
This service information contains German to English translation. The EASA used the English translation in referencing the document. For enforceability purposes, we will refer to the Solo Kleinmotoren service information as it appears on the document.
(5) Within the next 30 days after May 26, 2015 (the effective date retained from AD 2015-09-04), report the results of the inspection required in paragraph (f)(4) of this AD to Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH. Include the serial number of the engine and the operational time since change of the axle in your report. You may find contact information for Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH in paragraph (h) of this AD.
(6) At any time after the effective date of this AD, you may modify the engine following Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Techniseche Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin) Nr. 4603-17, Ausgabe (English translation: Dated) July 15, 2015; and DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical note No. 1000/26, dated September 23, 2015, with 10M072 titled Propellermontage nach TM 1000-26 (English translation: Propeller assembly TN 1000-26), dated July 14, 2015. This modification allows engine operation.
This service information contains German to English translation. The EASA used the English translation in referencing the document. For enforceability purposes, we will refer to the Solo Kleinmotoren service information and the DG Flugzeugbau GmbH as it appears on the document.
(7) Before further flight after doing the modification allowed in (f)(6) of this AD, remove the AD placed into the Limitations section of the AFM as required in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2015-0052R1, dated November 19, 2015, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Hollis, OK. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed at Hollis Municipal Airport, for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before March 21, 2016.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-0835; Docket No.16-ASW-1, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: 817-222-5857.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Hollis Municipal Airport, Hollis, OK.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-0835/Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-1.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document would amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 6-mile radius of Hollis Municipal Airport, Hollis, OK, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace areas are published in Section 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Hollis Municipal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Beach, ND. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed at Beach Airport, for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before March 21, 2016.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-5801; Docket No.15-AGL-18, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: 817-222-5857.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Beach Airport, Beach, ND.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-5801/Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-18.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document would amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 9-mile radius of Beach Airport, Beach, ND, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in Section 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.0-mile radius of Beach Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area by removing the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part time status for Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field, Hagerstown, MD. Also, this action would amend Class D and Class E airspace at Hagerstown, MD by recognizing the name change to Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field, and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport. This action would enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before March 21, 2016.
Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg. Ground Floor, Rm W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2015-4513; Airspace Docket No. 15-AEA-8, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in
Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-4513; Airspace Docket No. 15-AEA-8) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-4513; Airspace Docket No. 15-AEA-8.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area at Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field, Hagerstown, MD, by eliminating the NOTAM information that reads, “This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.” from the regulatory text. This action also would change the airport name and navigation aid from Washington County Regional Airport to Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field, and adjust the geographic coordinates of the airport for the Class D and Class E Airspace Areas listed in this proposal.
Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f),106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,200 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,200 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field. This Class E2 airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times when the Class D airspace area, as published in the Airport/Facility Directory, is not in effect.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.7 miles each side of the Hagerstown VOR 237° radial and 057° radial extending from 7.4 miles southwest of the VOR to 1.8 miles northeast of the VOR and within 2.7 miles each side of the Hagerstown VOR 082° radial extending from the 4.1-mile radius of Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field to the VOR, and within 4 miles each side of the Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field ILS Runway 27 localizer course extending from the localizer to 11.8 miles east of the localizer, excluding that portion within Prohibited Area P-40.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of the Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field and within 3.1 miles each side of the Hagerstown VOR 237° radial and 057° radial extending from 9.6 miles southwest of the VOR to 2.7 miles northeast of the VOR and within 4.4 miles each side of the Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field ILS Runway 27 localizer course extending from the localizer to 12.6 miles east of the localizer and within 4.4 miles each side of the St. Thomas VORTAC 141° radial extending from the 6.6-mile radius to the St. Thomas VORTAC, excluding that portion within Prohibited Area P-40.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is proposing to revise its regulations to require that each regional transmission organization (RTO) and independent system operator (ISO) cap each resource's incremental energy offer to the higher of $1,000/MWh or that resource's verified cost-based incremental energy offer.
Comments are due April 4, 2016.
Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:
•
•
1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is proposing to revise its regulations to require that each regional transmission organization (RTO) and independent system operator (ISO) cap each resource's incremental energy offer
2. The Commission preliminarily finds that the offer cap
3. To remedy these potential problems associated with the offer cap, the Commission proposes to require that each RTO/ISO cap each resource's incremental energy offer to the higher of $1,000/MWh or an incremental energy offer based on that resource's short-run marginal cost (cost-based incremental energy offer). Under the proposal, the costs underlying each cost-based incremental energy offer above $1,000/MWh must be verified before that offer could be used for purposes of calculating LMPs. Under this proposal, the Market Monitoring Unit or the RTO/ISO, as prescribed in the RTO/ISO tariff and consistent with Order No. 719,
4. The Commission proposes to make a generic change to the offer cap applicable to all RTOs/ISOs through a rulemaking to avoid exacerbating seams issues. Seams issues could arise if one RTO/ISO has an offer cap that materially differed from a neighboring RTO/ISO's offer cap. Different offer caps in neighboring RTOs/ISOs could result in flows that depend on the level of the two offer caps as opposed to economics or reliability needs.
5. The Commission seeks comment on these proposed reforms sixty (60) days after publication of this NOPR in the
6. On June 19, 2014, the Commission initiated the price formation proceeding.
7. Two of the Commission's goals in the price formation proceeding are relevant here. First, clearing prices in the energy and ancillary services markets should ideally “reflect the true marginal cost of production, taking into account all physical system constraints.”
8. Supply offers in day-ahead and real-time energy markets consist of both physical components and financial components. The physical components of a supply offer describe the resource's physical operating parameters, such as its minimum and maximum operating limits in a given day-ahead or real-time interval, and are denominated in MW, MWh, time, or some combination thereof. The financial components of a supply offer are denominated in dollars (
9. The LMP reflects the marginal cost of serving load at a specific location, given the set of generators that are dispatched and the limitations of the transmission system.
10. All six Commission-jurisdictional RTOs/ISOs have imposed a $1,000/MWh cap on incremental energy offers.
11. While the offer cap restricts incremental energy offers, the offer cap does not limit LMPs to the level of the offer cap (be it $1,000/MWh or $2,000/MWh) because the congestion and loss components of the LMP can cause the LMP to exceed the offer cap. Scarcity pricing and emergency purchases can
12. The $1,000/MWh offer cap dates back to 1999 when PJM first launched its market.
13. Extreme weather during the winter of 2013/14, dubbed the “Polar Vortex,” caused PJM and NYISO to request tariff waivers associated with the $1,000/MWh offer cap. During the Polar Vortex, various weather-related conditions led to a significant increase in the price of natural gas.
14. In response, on January 23, 2014, PJM filed concurrently two tariff waiver requests related to its offer cap. In its first request, which the Commission granted for the January 24-February 10, 2014 period, PJM requested that certain resources with cost-based offers above $1,000/MWh receive uplift payments to recoup those costs.
15. Similarly, high natural gas prices in New York prompted NYISO to file a waiver request related to its offer cap.
16. In the following winter of 2014/15, citing concerns about the potential for a repeat of the high natural gas prices experienced during the Polar Vortex, PJM and MISO submitted fillings to allow recovery of costs above $1,000/MWh during the winter months. Both PJM
17. For the winter of 2015/16, PJM
18. In its January 2015 notice inviting post-technical workshop comments in the price formation proceeding, the Commission asked specific questions about the $1,000/MWh offer cap and asked stakeholders to comment on various alternative offer cap designs.
19. Commenters differ about the need to raise or remove the $1,000/MWh offer cap. Several commenters argue that the $1,000/MWh offer cap should be raised or removed entirely, given recent occurrences of high natural gas prices.
20. Several commenters also assert that the offer cap distorts price signals and creates market inefficiencies.
21. Several commenters stress that the offer cap should be high enough to ensure that resources can reflect their actual costs in supply offers.
22. Some commenters oppose modifying the $1,000/MWh offer cap.
23. At the October 28, 2014 price formation technical workshop, several market monitors discussed the backstop role that the $1,000/MWh offer cap plays in market power mitigation. NYISO's internal market monitor stated that the offer cap provided a “backstop” assurance to protect consumers in the event that NYISO's market mitigation measures fail.
24. In response to the Commission's request for comments on price formation topics, several commenters suggest that the offer cap's purpose has been supplanted by improvements in market monitoring and mitigation and the Commission's enforcement activity.
25. Several other commenters assert that the offer cap is a backstop measure to protect consumers against the exercise of market power during tight system conditions.
26. Potomac Economics maintains that the offer cap is necessary to keep resources from exploiting any previously unknown flaws in market rules.
27. In its January 2015 notice inviting post-technical workshop comments in the price formation proceeding, the Commission sought comment on potential alternative offer cap designs, including (1) maintaining the $1,000/MWh offer cap and compensating resources for incremental energy costs above the $1,000/MWh offer cap through uplift; (2) adopting a floating offer cap that changes with natural gas prices; (3) raising the offer cap to a higher fixed level; and (4) allowing resources to submit cost-based offers above $1,000/MWh and allowing verified cost-based offers above $1,000/MWh to set LMP.
28. Some commenters assert that infrequent events where production costs exceed $1,000/MWh can be addressed effectively through uplift payments without raising the offer cap or otherwise including such costs in the LMP.
29. APPA and NRECA assert that the market clearing process does not allow sufficient time to verify whether incremental energy offers above $1,000/MWh are in fact cost-based; thus, these commenters argue, such cost verification should occur after-the-fact, with costs in excess of the offer cap recovered through uplift.
30. Several commenters support a floating offer cap that changes with generator input costs, such as the price of natural gas. Calpine asserts that offer caps should be flexible and responsive to changes in natural gas prices,
31. ISO-NE and MISO, however, argue that a floating offer cap would be difficult to implement.
32. Some commenters support raising the offer cap to a higher level. ANGA states that, at a minimum, the offer cap should be increased significantly to reduce unnecessary market distortions.
33. If the Commission chooses to raise the offer cap, ISO-NE urges using a simple numerical value rather than a more complicated formula.
34. TAPS asserts that permanently increasing the offer cap to allow incremental energy offers above $1,000/MWh “day-in and day-out” would sacrifice the benefits of the current offer cap as a “backstop” protection against market power abuse to address “extreme circumstances” that rarely, if ever,
35. Some commenters argue that cost-based incremental energy offers should not be capped.
36. APPA and NRECA, CAISO and NCPA, however, argue that cost-based incremental offers must be verified
37. TAPS contends that advance review and verification of cost-based incremental offers should be possible for most generators.
38. Most commenters state that offer caps should be the same for each RTO/ISO, to minimize potential seams issues.
39. In contrast, APPA and NRECA and NCPA state that offer cap levels should be set according to the needs of each individual RTO/ISO.
40. CAISO and MISO note that the offer cap level impacts other market parameters that affect LMPs, such as penalty prices associated with violating thermal or operating constraints that are contained in the RTO/ISO software used to calculate LMPs. SCE explains that when CAISO relaxes a transmission constraint, it uses the offer cap to set the congestion price.
41. IRC and New York Transmission Owners state that changing the offer cap could affect natural gas markets.
42. In the following section, the Commission first explains the need to reform the current offer caps. The Commission next summarizes the alternative proposals that the Commission considered but declined to adopt. Finally, the Commission describes its proposal and the three requirements that underlie it.
43. As stated above, five of the six Commission-jurisdictional RTOs/ISOs currently have a $1,000/MWh offer cap.
44. First, the offer cap can prevent a resource from recouping its short-run marginal costs. With the current $1,000/MWh offer cap, a resource whose short-run marginal cost exceeds $1,000/MWh may operate at a loss. For example, in January 2014, resources in PJM faced high natural gas prices that caused their short-run marginal costs to exceed the $1,000/MWh offer cap in place at the time.
45. Second, the offer cap can impair price formation because it can result in LMPs that are suppressed below the marginal cost of production. An LMP that is less than the marginal cost of production may not be just and reasonable because it sends an inaccurate signal to load about the actual cost of producing the electricity, and to resources about the value of the next increment of supply. For example, if the marginal resource at a given location has a $1,100/MWh short-run marginal cost but faces a $1,000/MWh cap, that resource's incremental energy offer will be constrained to $1,000/MWh, and as a result, the energy component of LMP will be $100/MWh below the marginal cost of production. In a properly functioning market, the LMP should accurately reflect the costs of serving load and both customers and resources will be aware of that cost through an accurate and transparent price signal.
46. Third, the offer cap may discourage resources from offering their supply to the RTO/ISO when their short-run marginal costs exceed the offer cap, even though market participants may be willing to purchase that supply. For example, a resource may not be subject to a must-offer requirement, and thus be under no obligation to offer its supply to the energy market and therefore simply decide not to offer its supply to the market if its short-run marginal cost exceeds the offer cap. Both PJM and MISO state that an offer cap that prevents cost recovery can reduce the likelihood that resources with short-run marginal costs above the cap will offer their supply to the RTO/ISO.
47. Fourth and finally, if several resources have short-run marginal costs above $1,000/MWh, the $1,000/MWh offer cap requires those resources to submit incremental energy offers equal to $1,000/MWh, even if the resources face different costs. Under this scenario, the $1,000/MWh offer cap will prevent the RTO/ISO from observing the cost differences among these resources and the RTO/ISO will not be able to select the most efficient resources because the resources with costs above $1,000/MWh were not able to submit incremental energy offers consistent with their short-run marginal cost. For these reasons, the Commission preliminarily finds that the current offer caps result in rates that are unjust and unreasonable. In addition, these reasons illustrate that the current offer caps may not achieve the price formation goals discussed above.
48. The Commission considered several alternatives to achieve the price formation goals. On balance, the Commission has preliminarily determined that the alternative that best achieves the price formation goals is to retain the existing $1,000/MWh offer cap except in circumstances when a resource has verifiable short-run marginal costs in excess of $1,000/MWh. The discussion at the technical workshop and subsequent comments received suggest that the $1,000/MWh offer cap is appropriate in most circumstances and serves as an appropriate backstop to the existing market power mitigation rules. However, recent experience also suggests that some resources may face short-run marginal costs greater than $1,000/MWh and, in such infrequent circumstances, the $1,000/MWh offer cap inappropriately limits those resources' incremental energy offers and the resulting LMP. To the extent incremental energy offers can be verified, we believe a generic reform to allow offers and LMPs to exceed $1,000/MWh will enhance market efficiency and mitigate the potential for seams issues.
49. This section briefly discusses why the Commission has not proposed the other alternative offer cap designs. The Commission is not proposing the alternative that uses uplift payments to compensate resources with costs above the offer cap because, while uplift payments may ensure that a resource recoups its costs, such a proposal would not ensure that LMPs accurately reflect the marginal cost of production—a key goal of the price formation effort.
50. The Commission is not proposing a floating offer cap that would change with natural gas prices. This alternative proposal would be unduly preferential to natural gas-fueled resources and discriminatory towards resources that do not use natural gas as fuel because such a cap would only vary with the cost inputs of resources that use natural gas as fuel. As such, this alternative proposal could prevent a resource that does not use natural gas as a fuel to generate electricity from submitting a legitimate cost-based incremental energy offer if that offer is above the natural gas-based floating cap. Although natural gas fueled resources are currently the most likely resources to have short-run marginal costs above $1,000/MWh, this may not always be
51. Finally, the Commission is not proposing to raise the offer cap to a higher fixed level. A higher fixed offer cap could still limit a resource's incremental energy offer below its short-run marginal cost and potentially suppress LMPs if that resource's costs rose above the fixed offer cap. Additionally, like the floating offer cap, a higher fixed offer cap could raise market power concerns.
52. To remedy any potentially unjust and unreasonable rates, the Commission proposes, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
53. The first proposed requirement is as follows:
54. The Commission preliminarily finds that it is necessary to permit resources to submit cost-based incremental energy offers above $1,000/MWh, because as PJM and MISO indicated in recent filings, the $1,000/MWh offer cap appears to have limited some resources' incremental energy offers to a level below their short-run marginal cost during intervals with high natural gas prices.
55. The Commission, however, does not propose to eliminate the $1,000/MWh offer cap entirely because the $1,000/MWh functions as a backstop for existing market power mitigation rules. Several market monitors at the Scarcity and Shortage Pricing, Offer Mitigation and Offer Caps Workshop held on October 28, 2014,
56. The second proposed requirement is as follows:
57. The Commission preliminarily finds that verification of the costs underlying cost-based incremental energy offers above $1,000/MWh is warranted to reduce the potential exercise of market power. Without such verification, a resource may be able to submit an offer above $1,000/MWh not because its costs exceed $1,000/MWh, but rather because it recognizes that its energy is necessary to serve load and that it does not face competition from other resources. Using such an uncompetitive offer to calculate LMPs could result in unjust and unreasonable rates.
58. Under the proposal, the Market Monitoring Unit or the RTO/ISO would be required to verify that each cost-based incremental energy offer above $1,000/MWh is in fact cost-based. The Market Monitoring Unit or the RTO/ISO would verify that a resource's cost-based offer is an accurate reflection of that resource's short-run marginal cost. The Commission notes that for purposes of mitigation, the RTO/ISO tariffs use different terminology to describe the market power mitigation process, short-run marginal costs, and mitigated offers.
59. Under the proposal, the Market Monitoring Unit or the RTO/ISO must verify the costs within a cost-based incremental energy offer above $1,000/MWh
60. Under this proposal, each RTO/ISO would be required to include in its tariff a process by which the Market Monitoring Unit or RTO/ISO verifies the costs included in cost-based incremental energy offers above $1,000/MWh. To create such a verification process, the Commission expects that the Market Monitoring Unit or RTO/ISO would build on its existing mitigation processes for calculating or updating cost-based incremental energy offers. The Commission notes that the nature of before-the-fact and after-the-fact cost verification processes often differ. The Commission expects that a market participant that seeks to submit a cost-based incremental energy offer above $1,000/MWh must provide appropriate documentation to the Market Monitoring Unit or the RTO/ISO. The Market Monitoring Unit or RTO/ISO should then have a before-the-fact verification process that would allow for timely cost verification such that an offer submitted in a reasonable period of time could be used for purposes of calculating LMPs. As noted already, the Commission emphasizes that this before-the-fact verification should build upon existing procedures.
61. Currently, RTOs/ISOs use different processes to develop and update offers for mitigation purposes. Under this proposal, the Commission would not require RTOs/ISOs to adopt the same approach to implement the cost-based incremental energy offer verification requirement.
62. RTOs/ISOs also differ in how they define the components of cost-based incremental energy offers for purposes of mitigation.
63. Given that the verification process for cost-based incremental energy offers is intended to build on an RTO/ISO's existing mitigation processes, as proposed, external RTO/ISO resources (
64. The Commission preliminarily finds that, as financial instruments, virtual transactions have no short-run marginal production costs and, thus, could not provide a cost-basis for a virtual transaction above $1,000/MWh. Accordingly, virtual transactions in RTOs/ISOs which currently limit virtual transaction bid/offer caps to existing incremental energy offer caps, could not exceed $1,000/MWh under the proposal.
65. The cost-based incremental energy offer verification requirement also ensures that a resource with short-run marginal costs above $1,000/MWh recoups its costs in the event that the Market Monitoring Unit or RTO/ISO cannot verify that resource's costs prior to the market clearing process. The Commission emphasizes that RTOs/ISOs would be expected to adopt a verification process that allows timely submitted and appropriately documented cost-based incremental energy offers to be used to calculate LMPs; compensating resources through make-whole payments should be treated only as a backstop. Under this proposal, the RTO/ISO would adopt a procedure to include the offer, modified as discussed below, in its market clearing process. Accordingly, if such an offer clears the energy market, that resource may be entitled to a make-whole payment if the Market Monitoring Unit or RTO/ISO can verify after-the-fact that the resource's short-run marginal cost was above $1,000/MWh. The basis of the make-whole payment would be the difference between a given resource's energy market revenues and that resource's total offer costs, including the cost-based incremental energy offer.
66. The Commission's proposal would permit regional variation in the process for treating incremental energy offers above $1,000/MWh that the Market Monitoring Unit or RTO/ISO cannot verify prior to the start of the market clearing process. For example, the RTO/ISO could have procedures to change the incremental energy offer to $1,000/MWh and to mitigate that offer further to a level below $1,000/MWh pursuant to other applicable market power mitigation provisions. The Commission continues to find that regional variation is acceptable here because incremental energy offers are currently subject to the existing RTO/ISO mitigation procedures that vary across RTOs/ISOs to appropriately account for regional differences. Further, RTO/ISO mitigation procedures only affect resources within the RTO/ISO. However, as discussed below, the offer cap also affects inter-regional trading such that generic action is required to avoid exacerbating seams.
67. Existing Commission regulations, as described below, already create a framework that ensures cost-based incremental energy offers submitted as part of a supply offer are based on legitimate costs.
68. Some commenters express concern that verification of cost-based incremental energy offers prior to the market clearing process may require RTOs/ISOs to re-run the market if the Market Monitoring Unit or RTO/ISO initially accepts a cost-based incremental energy offer above $1,000/MWh and subsequently determines through an after-the-fact review that the offer that established the LMP was not in fact cost-based.
69. The third proposed requirement is as follows:
70. The Commission proposes to make a generic change to the offer cap applicable to all RTOs/ISOs through a rulemaking to avoid exacerbating seams issues. Seams issues could arise if one RTO/ISO has an offer cap that materially differed from a neighboring
71. Some commenters have expressed concern that different offer caps in neighboring markets could create seams issues. The Commission acknowledges that the instant proposal could result in neighboring markets having different effective offer caps in a given interval because the marginal cost of production in one RTO/ISO may differ from other neighboring markets due to different resources with different short-run marginal costs being on the margin. Nonetheless, the Commission believes these differences will not adversely affect seams because these differences would be driven by actual costs and not by offer caps artificially suppressing LMPs. Therefore, the associated differences in LMPs will encourage efficient interchange transactions. The Commission seeks comment on this preliminary finding and other seams issues related to this proposal.
72. In several RTO/ISOs, factors affecting LMPs and other market outcomes depend on the offer cap. For example, CAISO's shortage pricing and penalty factors that apply when transmission constraints are relaxed are based on the $1,000/MWh offer cap.
73. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal as described herein. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the following items: (1) Whether a hard cap on cost-based incremental energy offers used for purposes of calculating LMPs should be included in any final rule in this proceeding and, if so, whether the hard cap should equal $2,000/MWh or another value; (2) the ability to timely verify the costs within incremental energy offers above $1,000/MWh prior to the day-ahead or real-time market clearing process, including whether the verification of physical offer components is also necessary; (3) whether the Market Monitoring Unit or RTO/ISO may need additional information to ensure that all short-run marginal cost components that are difficult to quantify, such as certain opportunity costs, are accurately reflected in a resource's cost-based incremental energy offer and to the extent that RTOs/ISOs currently include an adder above cost in cost-based incremental energy offers, whether such an adder is appropriate for incremental energy offers above $1,000/MWh; (4) whether the Market Monitoring Unit or RTO/ISO may need additional information or new authority to require revisions or corrections to a cost-based incremental energy offer to ensure that a resource's cost-based incremental energy offer is an accurate reflection of that resource's short-run marginal cost; (5) whether the proposal should apply to imports and whether a cost verification process for import transactions is feasible; (6) whether excluding virtual transactions above $1,000/MWh could limit hedging opportunities, present opportunities for manipulation or gaming, create market inefficiencies, or have other undesirable consequences, and whether alternatives exist which would allow virtual increment offers and decrement bids to be submitted and cleared at prices above $1,000/MWh; and (7) the impact the proposal would have on seams. Comments must be submitted within sixty (60) days of publication of this NOPR in the
74. The Commission proposes to require that each RTO/ISO submit a compliance filing no later than four months from the effective date of the final rule in this proceeding to demonstrate that it meets the proposed requirements set forth in the final rule. The Commission will accept RTO/ISO proposals that satisfy the three requirements described above and notes that proposals may vary regionally based on the existing RTO/ISO tariff provisions that are used to develop cost-based incremental energy offers and to implement market power mitigation provisions that are to be used as a basis for implementing this proposal. As noted previously, the Commission is also willing to consider proposed revisions to other market design features that may require revision in light of this proposal, such as changes to scarcity or shortage pricing or other market parameters.
75. To the extent that any RTO/ISO believes that it already complies with the reforms adopted in a final rule in this proceeding, the RTO/ISO would be required to demonstrate, in the compliance filing, how it complies.
76. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
77. The reforms proposed in this NOPR would amend the Commission's regulations to improve the operation of organized wholesale electric power
78. While the Commission expects the adoption of the reforms proposed in this NOPR to provide significant benefits, the Commission understands implementation can be a complex endeavor. The Commission solicits comments on the accuracy of provided burden and cost estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondents' burdens, including the use of automated information techniques. Specifically, the Commission seeks detailed comments on the potential cost and time necessary to implement aspects of the reforms proposed in this NOPR, including (1) software and business processes changes, including market power mitigation; (2) increased time spent validating cost-based incremental energy offers; and (3) processes for RTOs/ISOs to vet proposed changes amongst their stakeholders.
The Commission
• Legal (code 23-0000), $129.87
• Computer and mathematical (code 15-0000), $58.25
• Information systems manager (code 11-3021), $94.55
• IT security analyst (code 15-1122), $63.55
• Auditing and accounting (code 13-2011), $51.11
• Information and record clerk (code 43-4199), $37.50
• Electrical Engineer (code 17-2071), $66.45
• Economist (code 19-3011), $73.04
• Management (code 11-0000), $78.04
The average hourly cost (salary plus benefits), weighting all of these skill sets evenly, is $72.48. The Commission rounds it to $72 per hour.
The Commission notes that these estimates do not include costs for software or hardware. Software or hardware upgrades may not be required.
79. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director], email:
80. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
81. This rule would apply to six RTOs/ISOs (all of which are transmission organizations). The average estimated annual cost to each of the RTOs/ISOs is $36,000, all in Year 1. This one-time cost of filing and implementing these changes is not significant.
82. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
83. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due April 4, 2016. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM16-5-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address.
84. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at
85. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
86. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
87. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
88. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number of this document, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field.
89. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Non-discriminatory open access transmission tariffs.
By direction of the Commission.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend part 35, chapter I, title 18,
16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
(g) * * *
(9)
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations.
In the Rules and Regulations section in this issue of the
Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by May 4, 2016.
Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-100861-15), Room 5205, 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-100861-15), Courier's desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the regulations, Suzanne M. Walsh, (202) 317-4908; concerning submissions of comments, Oluwafunmilayo Taylor, (202) 317-5179 (not toll-free numbers).
Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of 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 assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f), these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under
The principal author of these regulations is Suzanne M. Walsh of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(0) [The text of the proposed amendments to § 1.704-1(b)(0) is the same as the text of § 1.704-1T(b)(0) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(
(
(
(4) * * *
(viii) * * *
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(5) * * *
[The text of the proposed amendments to § 1.704-1(b)(5)
[The text of the proposed amendments to § 1.704-1(b)(5)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a special local regulation on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean east of Daytona Beach, Florida during the Daytona Beach Grand Prix of the Seas, a series of high-speed personal watercraft boat races. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters surrounding the event. This special local regulation will be enforced daily 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., from April 22 through April 24, 2016. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Jacksonville or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 7, 2016.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-1108 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Allan Storm, Sector Jacksonville, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (904) 564-7563, email
On December 7, 2015, Powerboat P1-USA, LLC notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a series of high speed boat races in the Atlantic Ocean, offshore from Daytona Beach, FL from April 22 through 24, 2016. The COTP Jacksonville has determined that the potential hazards associated with the high speed boat races necessitate the establishment of a special local regulation.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States by prohibiting all vessels and persons not participating in the event from entering the regulated area. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233.
The COTP proposes to establish a special local regulation for the Daytona Beach Grand Prix of the Seas, a series of high-speed personal watercraft boat races. The regulated area includes the waters of the Atlantic Ocean offshore from Daytona Beach, Florida and will be enforced daily 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., from April 22 through April 24, 2016. Approximately 90 high-speed personal watercraft are anticipated to participate in the races. The regulated area would encompass an approximated offshore area that is 1,350 yards wide that extends from 600 yards south of the Daytona Beach pier to 1,900 yards north of the pier. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below, we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly,
The Coast Guard has determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: (1) the special local regulation would be enforced for a total of only 27 hours over the course of three days; (2) although persons and vessels would not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the COTP Jacksonville or a designated representative, they would be able to operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels would still be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated if authorized by the COTP Jacksonville or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard would provide advance notification of the special local regulation to the local maritime community via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or by on-scene designated representative.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit through the regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a special local regulation that would prohibit persons and vessels from transiting through a 2,500 yard by 1,350 yard regulated area during a three day racing event lasting nine hours daily. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the COTP Jacksonville by telephone at 904-564-7511, or a designated representative via VHF-FM radio on channel 16 to request authorization. If authorization is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP Jacksonville or designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area through Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM channel 16 or by on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee.
We announce our intention to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee prior to publishing proposed regulations to implement part A of title I, Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The negotiating committee will include representatives of constituencies that are significantly affected by the topics proposed for negotiations, including Federal, State, and local education administrators, tribal leadership, parents and students, including historically underrepresented students, teachers, principals, other school leaders (including charter school leaders), paraprofessionals, members of State and local boards of education, the civil rights community, including representatives of students with disabilities, English learners, and other historically underserved students, and the business community. We request nominations for individual negotiators who represent key stakeholder constituencies for the issues to be negotiated to serve on the committee, and we set a schedule for committee meetings.
We must receive your nominations for negotiators to serve on the committee on or before February 25, 2016. The dates, times, and locations of the committee meetings are set out in the
Submit your nominations for negotiators to James Butler, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W246, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone (202) 260-9737 or by email:
James Butler, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W246, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone (202) 260-9737 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
On December 10, 2015, the President signed into law the ESSA, amending the ESEA. Among other things, the ESSA reauthorizes, for a four-year period, programs under title I of the ESEA, which are designed to provide all children significant opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education, and to close educational achievement gaps.
On December 22, 2015, we published a request for information and notice of meetings (RFI) in the
In response to the RFI, the Department received written comments from more than 370 individuals and organizations. Those written comments may be viewed through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1) Prepare proposed regulations that would update existing assessment regulations to reflect changes to section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA, including:
(i) Locally selected nationally recognized high school assessments, under section 1111(b)(2)(H);
(ii) The exception for advanced mathematics assessments in 8th grade, under section 1111(b)(2)(C);
(iii) Inclusion of students with disabilities in academic assessments, including alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, subject to a cap of 1.0% of students assessed for a subject;
(iv) Inclusion of English learners in academic assessments and English language proficiency assessments; and
(v) Computer-adaptive assessments.
(2) Prepare proposed regulations related to the requirement under section 1118(b) of the ESEA that title I, part A funds be used to supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds, specifically:
(i) Regarding the methodology a local educational agency uses to allocate State and local funds to each title I school to ensure compliance with the supplement not supplant requirement; and
(ii) The timeline for compliance.
These topics are tentative. Topics may be added or removed as the process continues.
We intend to select at least one negotiator for each constituency represented on the committee. For any constituency that is represented by only one negotiator, we will also select an alternate. In cases of constituencies for which an alternate is selected, the primary negotiator will participate for the purpose of determining consensus; the alternate negotiator will participate for the purpose of determining consensus only in the absence of the primary negotiator. All members, including any alternates, may speak during the negotiations.
Individuals who are not selected as members of the committee will be able to attend the committee meetings (which will be open to the public—see below).
• State administrators and State boards of education;
• Local administrators and local boards of education;
• Tribal leadership;
• Parents and students, including historically underserved students;
• Teachers;
• Principals;
• Other school leaders, including charter school leaders;
• Paraprofessionals;
• The civil rights community, including representatives of students with disabilities, English learners, and other historically underserved students;
• The business community; and
• Federal administrators.
The goal of the committee is to develop proposed regulations that reflect a final consensus of the committee. An individual selected as a negotiator will be expected to represent the interests of his or her constituency and participate in the negotiations in a manner consistent with the goal of developing proposed regulations on which the committee will reach consensus. If consensus is reached, the negotiator and, if applicable, his or her employer organization, is bound by the consensus and may not submit a negative comment through the public comment process on the resulting proposed regulations. The Department will not consider any such negative comments.
• The name of the nominee and the constituency the nominee represents.
• Evidence of the nominee's expertise or experience in the topics proposed for negotiations.
• Evidence of support from individuals or groups within the constituency that the nominee will represent.
• The nominee's commitment that he or she is available to attend all negotiation sessions and will actively participate in good faith in the development of the proposed regulations.
• The nominee's contact information, including address, phone number, and email address.
Nominees will be notified of whether they have been selected as negotiators as soon as the Department's review process is completed.
In addition, an optional third session may be scheduled for April 18-April 19, 2016, if the committee determines that a third session would enable the committee to complete its work of developing proposed regulations that reflect a final consensus of the committee. Sessions will run from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The committee meetings will be held at the U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202.
The meetings are open to the public.
The site of the meetings for the negotiated rulemaking process is accessible to individuals with disabilities. If you need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting (
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Commission seeks comment on a proposal to adopt rules that would require manufacturers and MVPDs to ensure that consumers are able to readily access user display settings for closed captioning.
Comments are due on or before February 24, 2016; reply comments are due on or before March 7, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 12-108, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Maria Mullarkey,
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. In this
2. In this
3. The TDCA requires generally that television receivers and other apparatus
4. We seek comment on whether the TDCA gives the Commission authority to adopt further implementing regulations to ensure that consumers are able to readily access user display settings for closed captioning. Specifically, the TDCA, as codified in Section 330(b) of the Act, provides that “[a]s new video technology is developed, the Commission shall take such action as the Commission determines appropriate to ensure that closed-captioning service continues to be available to consumers.”
5. Although the rules implemented in 2000 were intended to provide consumers with the benefits of customization for closed captioning, the record indicates that these features remain inaccessible to many viewers who are deaf and hard of hearing because they are difficult to locate and use. As discussed in the
6. Further, we seek comment on how we would implement a requirement that consumers be able to readily access user display settings for closed captioning. Consumer/Academic Groups contend that access to closed captioning display features should not be lower than the first level of a menu,
7. We also seek comment on steps industry already is taking or planning to take to facilitate access to user display settings for closed captioning. We note that, in response to questions regarding the state of industry readiness in complying with the requirements adopted in the
8. We believe that a requirement that consumers be able to readily access user display settings for closed captioning should apply to apparatus covered by Section 303(u)(1) of the Act (
9. Finally, if the Commission adopts rules, what time frame would be appropriate for requiring covered entities to ensure that consumers are able to readily access user display settings for closed captioning? In particular, we seek comment on Consumer/Academic Groups' request that the compliance deadline for readily accessible closed captioning display settings be the same as the December 20, 2016 deadline for the closed captioning activation mechanism adopted pursuant to Sections 204 and 205 of the CVAA.
10. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”),
11. In the
12. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to the Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990, Public Law 101-431, 104 Stat. 960, and the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(u), and 330(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303(u), 330(b).
13. 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 rules proposed in the
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22. In addition, the SBA's placement of Cable Television Distribution Services in the category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is applicable to cable-based Educational Broadcasting Services. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for small wireline businesses. This category is defined as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities. In addition to Census data, the Commission's internal records indicate that as of September 2012, there are 2,241 active EBS licenses. The Commission estimates that of these 2,241 licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational institutions and school districts, which are by statute defined as small businesses.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28. In the
29.
30.
31.
32. We do not have specific information quantifying the costs and administrative burdens associated with the rules proposed in the
33. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed 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 small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
34. The rules proposed in the
35. Further, the Commission seeks comment on how alternative ways to implement a requirement that consumers be able to readily access user display settings for closed captioning, as well as on the costs and benefits of such a requirement and the impact of the proposed rules on small entities. These considerations will allow the Commission to address alternatives that can potentially minimize the burden and costs of compliance for covered entities, including smaller entities.
36. Based on these considerations, we believe that, in proposing additional rules in the
37. None.
38. The
39. We remind interested parties that this proceeding is treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
40. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS:
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
41. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
42.
43. Accordingly,
44.
Cable television operators, Communications equipment, Multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), Satellite television service providers.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 79 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 303, 307, 309, 310, 330, 544a, 613, and 617.
(e)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 7 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) (Reef Fish FMP), Amendment 6 to the FMP for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of Puerto Rico and the USVI (Spiny Lobster FMP), Amendment 5 to the FMP for the Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates of Puerto Rico and the USVI (Coral FMP), and Amendment 4 to the FMP for the Queen Conch Resources of Puerto Rico and the USVI (Queen Conch FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. In combination, these amendments represent the Application of Accountability Measures (AM) Amendment (AM Application Amendment). The AM Application Amendment would resolve an existing inconsistency between language in the four Council FMPs and the regulations implementing application of AMs in the U.S. Caribbean exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The purpose of the AM Application Amendment is to ensure the regulations governing AMs in the Caribbean EEZ are consistent with their authorizing FMPs.
Written comments must be received on or before April 4, 2016.
You may submit comments on the AM Application Amendment, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0124” by any of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of the AM Application Amendment, which includes an environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
María del Mar López, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any FMP or FMP amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a plan or amendment, publish an announcement in the
The FMPs being revised by the AM Application Amendment were prepared by the Council and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The final rule implementing Amendment 2 to the Queen Conch FMP and Amendment 5 to the Reef Fish FMP (2010 Caribbean ACL Amendment) established annual catch limits (ACLs) and AMs for species and species groups that at the time were classified as undergoing overfishing (
This inconsistent language between the FMPs and the implementing regulations may create confusion to fishers and the public about whether an AM-based closure for a specific species/species group will continue in subsequent years if an AM is triggered. The AM Application Amendment would correct the inconsistency between the authorizing FMPs and the regulatory language at §§ 622.12(a) and 622.491(b) by revising the text within the four FMPs describing how AMs are applied to be consistent with the language in the regulations. Specifically, the phrase in the four authorizing FMPs that states “The needed changes will remain in effect until modified by the Council,” which describes the duration of AMs, would be removed from the four FMPs. The result of this proposed change would be that under both the authorizing FMPs and AM-based closure regulatory language, an AM closure would only apply for the fishing year in which it was implemented. This approach is consistent with the intent of the Council and implementing regulations used by NMFS to apply AMs in the Caribbean EEZ. The current process used by NMFS and the Council to apply AMs in the Caribbean EEZ would not change as a result of this proposed amendment, thus this action would have no additional direct or indirect economic, social, or biological/ecological effects.
A proposed rule that would implement the measures outlined in the AM Application Amendment has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the AM Application Amendment and the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMPs, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the
The Council has submitted the AM Application Amendment for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments received by April 4, 2016, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the AM Application Amendment. Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All relevant comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking; consideration of a control date.
This notice announces the establishment of a control date of June 30, 2015, that the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) may use if it decides to create restrictions limiting participation in the dolphin commercial sector of the dolphin and wahoo fishery in the Atlantic exclusive economic zone. Anyone entering the sector after the control date will not be assured of future access should a management regime that limits participation in the sector be prepared and implemented. This announcement is intended, in part, to promote awareness of the potential eligibility criteria for future access so as to discourage speculative entry into the Atlantic dolphin commercial sector while the Council and NMFS consider whether and how access to the sector should be controlled. NMFS invites comments on the establishment of this control date.
Written comments must be received by March 7, 2016.
You may submit comments identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2016-0001” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Mary Janine Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The dolphin and wahoo fishery in the Atlantic is managed under the fishery management plan (FMP) for the Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery off the Atlantic States. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) through regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The Council voted at the September 2015 meeting to establish a control date of June 30, 2015, for the Atlantic dolphin commercial sector of the dolphin and wahoo fishery. The control date enables the Council to inform current and potential participants that it is considering creating restrictions limiting participation in the Atlantic dolphin commercial sector.
This notice informs current and potential participants in the Atlantic dolphin commercial sector within the dolphin and wahoo fishery that after June 30, 2015, they may not be ensured participation under future management of the fishery. If the Council decides to prepare an amendment to the FMP to restrict participation in the Atlantic dolphin commercial sector in relation to this control date, an analysis of specific biological, economic, and social effects will be prepared at that time.
Publication of the control date in the
Fishermen are not guaranteed future participation in a fishery or sector regardless of their entry date or intensity of participation in the fishery or sector before or after the control date under consideration. The Council subsequently may choose a different control date or they may choose a management regime without using a control date. The Council also may choose to take no further action to control entry or access to the Atlantic dolphin commercial sector, in which case the control date may be rescinded.
This notification also gives the public notice that interested participants should locate and preserve records that substantiate and verify their participation in the Atlantic dolphin commercial sector of the dolphin and wahoo fishery.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Gallatin County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Bozeman, MT. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held March 10 from 12:30-5:30 p.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Bozeman Public Library, Small Community Room, 626 E Main St., Bozeman, MT 59715.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Mariah Leuschen-Lonergan, Public Affairs Specialist and RAC Coordinator by phone at 406-587-6735 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is:
1. Review and recommend 2016 project proposals to Designated Federal Official.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by February 19 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Attn: Mariah Leuschen, RAC Coordinator, 10 E Babcock, Bozeman, MT 59105 or by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the extension of the information collection, Forest Service Law Enforcement & Investigations Ride-Along Program.
Comments must be received in writing on or before April 4, 2016 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to the Director of Law Enforcement and Investigations, USDA Forest Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mail stop 1140, Washington, DC 20250-1140.
Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to 703-605-4690, or by email to Ken Pearson at
The public may inspect comments received at USDA Forest Service Washington Office, Yates Building, 201 14th Street SW., Washington, DC; during normal business hours. Visitors must call ahead to 703-605-4690 to facilitate entry to the building.
Ken Pearson, Assistant Director for Law Enforcement & Liaison, 703-605-4690.
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.
Form FS-5300-33 asks for the participant's name, address, social security number, driver's license number, work address, location of the Ride-Along, and the reason for the Ride-Along. Law enforcement officers use form FS-5300-33 to conduct a minimum background check before authorizing a person to ride along.
Form FS-5300-34 is signed by riders to exempt law enforcement officers and the Forest Service from damage, loss, or injury liability incurred during the rider's participation in the program. If the information is not collected, riders will be denied permission to ride along with Forest Service law enforcement personnel.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the information collection submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council (Council) will meet in Washington, DC. The Council is authorized under Section 9 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act, as amended by Title XII, Section 1219 of Public Law 101-624 (the Act) (16 U.S.C. 2105g) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. II). Additional information concerning the Council, can be found by visiting the Council's Web site at:
The meeting will be held on the following dates and times:
• Tuesday, March 15, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST
• Wednesday, March 16, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EST
The meeting will be held at the Forest Service Headquarters, Sidney Yates Building, Pinchote Conference Room, Second Floor, 201 14th Street SW., Washington, DC 20024. Written comments concerning this meeting should be submitted as described under
Nancy Stremple, Executive Staff, National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, Sidney Yates Building, Room 3SC-01C, 201 14th Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, by telephone at 202-205-7829, or by email at
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Introduce new members;
2. Finalize the 2016 Work Plan;
3. Update status of the 2017 grant categories;
4. Listen to local constituents urban forestry concerns;
5. Present the 10-year action plan (2016-2026) to leadership;
6. Receive Forest Service budget and program updates; and
7. Initiate the 2016 Accomplishments/Recommendations report.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by February 3, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Council discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Council members, however anyone who would like to bring urban and community forestry matters to the attention of the Council may file written statements with the Council's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Nancy Stemple, Executive Staff, National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, Sidney Yates Building, Room 3SC-01C, 201 14th Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, or by email at
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The nature of the South Gravelly Allotment Management Plan project proposes updating of four domestic livestock grazing management plans located on the southern end of the Gravelly Mountains, Beaverhead and Madison Counties, Montana.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by March 7, 2016. The draft environmental impact statement is expected June of 2016 and the final environmental impact statement is expected January of 2017.
Send written comments to Dale Olson, District Ranger, Madison Ranger District, 5 Forest Service Road, Ennis, MT 59729. Comments may also be sent via email to
Dale Olson, District Ranger, Madison Ranger District, 5 Forest Service Road, Ennis, MT 59729. Phone: 406-682-4253.
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
This action is being undertaken to review grazing practices and infrastructure on four domestic livestock grazing allotments (Eureka Basin, Pole Creek, Southwest Corner, Robb Creek) to ensure compliance with the applicable Beaverhead-Deerlodge Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) direction. This action is needed because there is new direction in the Forest Plan for livestock grazing, site specific suitability, and site specific Allowable Use Levels (AUL's) need to be validated. Additionally this action is needed to meet the Rescissions Act schedule for updating allotment plans.
The authorizing official proposes to: Maintain current authorized livestock type and numbers, season of use and infrastructure on the allotments. Cattle grazing is authorized between July 1 and October 15 for a total of 9363 AUMs. Domestic livestock grazing would continue following current allowable use levels. Specifically, for upland forage no more than 55 percent use; for riparian areas no more than 30 percent streambank disturbance or maintain no less than four inches of greenline stubble height measured by stream reach. Reaching any one allowable use parameter requires movement of livestock from the area, pasture or the allotment. There would be no changes or additions in grazing management or infrastructure. Monitoring of compliance with AULs and long term vegetation monitoring would continue. Allotment management plans for the four allotments would be updated to incorporate the AULs and management prescriptions.
No Grazing Alternative. Under this alternative domestic livestock grazing permits on the four allotments would be discontinued with a minimum of two years notice (36 CFR 222.4(a)(1)) to permittees. No new term grazing permits for domestic livestock grazing would be issued. All internal fences and water developments would be removed.
The Madison District Ranger will be the responsible official.
The decision to be made is whether to implement the proposed action, another alternative, or a combination of the alternatives.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. A scoping letter and maps will be mailed to interested publics, Tribes, and federal, state, and local governments.
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of initiating the assessment phase of the forest plan revision for the Custer Gallatin National Forest.
The Custer Gallatin National Forest, located in southern Montana and northwest South Dakota, is initiating the first phase of the forest planning process pursuant to the 2012 National Forest System Land Management Planning rule (36 CFR part 219). This process will result in a revised forest land management plan (Forest Plan) which describes the strategic direction for management of forest resources on the Custer Gallatin National Forest for the next ten to fifteen years. The planning process encompasses three-stages: assessment, plan revision, and monitoring. The first stage of the planning process involves assessing ecological, social, and economic conditions of the planning area, which is documented in an assessment report.
The Forest is inviting the public to contribute in the development of the Assessment. The Forest will be hosting public forums near the end of February into early March 2016 with a second set of meetings forthcoming in June 2016. We will invite the public to share information relevant to the assessment including existing information, current trends, and local knowledge. Public engagement opportunities associated with the development of the Assessment will be announced on the Web site cited below.
From January 2016 through August 2016, the public is invited to participate in the development of the Assessment. The draft assessment report for the Custer Gallatin National Forest is
Following completion of the assessment, the Forest will initiate procedures pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to prepare and evaluate a revised forest plan.
Written correspondence can be sent to Custer Gallatin National Forest, P.O. Box 130, Bozeman, MT 59771, or sent via email to
Virginia Kelly, Forest Plan Revision Team Leader at 406-587-6704. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. (Eastern time), Monday through Friday.
More information on the planning process can also be found on the Custer Gallatin National Forest Planning Web site at
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 requires that every National Forest System (NFS) unit develop a land management plan (LMP). On April 9, 2012, the Forest Service finalized its land management planning rule (2012 Planning Rule, 36 CFR part 291), which describes requirements for the planning process and the content of the land management plans. Forest plans describe the strategic direction for management of forest resources for ten to fifteen years, and are adaptive and amendable as conditions change over time. Pursuant to the 2012 Forest Planning Rule (36 CFR part 219), the planning process encompasses three-stages: assessment, plan revision, and monitoring. The first stage of the planning process involves assessing social, economic, and ecological conditions of the planning area, which is documented in an assessment report. This notice announces the start of the initial stage of the planning process, which is the development of the assessment report.
The second stage, formal plan revision, involves the development of our Forest Plan in conjunction with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement under the NEPA. Once the plan revision is completed, it will be subject to the objection procedures of 36 CFR part 219, subpart B, before it can be approved. The third stage of the planning process is the monitoring and evaluation of the revised plan, which is ongoing over the life of the revised plan.
The assessment rapidly evaluates existing information about relevant ecological, economic, cultural and social conditions, trends, and sustainability and their relationship to land management plans within the context of the broader landscape. This information builds a common understanding prior to entering formal plan revision. The development of the assessment will include public engagement.
With this notice, the Custer Gallatin National Forest invites other governments, non-governmental parties, and the public to contribute in assessment development. The intent of public engagement during development of the assessment is to identify as much relevant information as possible to inform the upcoming plan revision process. We encourage contributors to share material about existing conditions, trends, and perceptions of social, economic, and ecological systems relevant to the planning process. The assessment also supports the development of relationships with key stakeholders that will be used throughout the plan revision process
As public meetings, other opportunities for public engagement, and public review and comment opportunities are identified to assist with the development of the forest plan revision, public announcements will be made, notifications will be posted on the Forest's Web site at
The responsible official for the revision of the land management plan for the Custer Gallatin National Forest is Mary Erickson, Forest Supervisor, Custer Gallatin National Forest.
Office of the Secretary, Commerce.
General Notice Announcing Population Estimates.
This notice announces the voting age population estimates as of July 1, 2015, for each state and the District of Columbia. We are providing this notice in accordance with the 1976 amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act, Title 52, United States Code, Section 30116(e).
Karen Humes, Chief, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Room HQ-5H174, Washington, DC 20233, at 301-763-2071.
Under the requirements of the 1976 amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act, Title 52, United States Code, Section 30116(e), I hereby give notice that the estimates of the voting age population for July 1, 2015, for each state and the District of Columbia are as shown in the following table.
I have certified these estimates for the Federal Election Commission.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure pipe (seamless pipe) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the levels indicated in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.
Peter Zukowski, Office I, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0189.
On October 1, 2015, the Department initiated the first sunset review of the
The Department received an adequate substantive response collectively from the domestic industry within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
The scope of this order consists of certain seamless carbon and alloy steel (other than stainless steel) pipes and redraw hollows, less than or equal to 16 inches (406.4 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (
Specifically excluded from the scope of the order are: (1) All pipes meeting aerospace, hydraulic, and bearing tubing specifications; (2) all pipes meeting the chemical requirements of ASTM A-335, whether finished or unfinished; and (3) unattached couplings. Also excluded from the scope of the order are all mechanical, boiler, condenser and heat exchange tubing, except when such products conform to the dimensional requirements,
The merchandise covered by the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7304.19.1020, 7304.19.1030, 7304.19.1045, 7304.19.1060, 7304.19.5020, 7304.19.5050, 7304.31.6050, 7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024, 7304.39.0028, 7304.39.0032, 7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0040, 7304.39.0044, 7304.39.0048, 7304.39.0052, 7304.39.0056, 7304.39.0062, 7304.39.0068, 7304.39.0072, 7304.51.5005, 7304.51.5060, 7304.59.6000, 7304.59.8010, 7304.59.8015, 7304.59.8020, 7304.59.8025, 7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8035, 7304.59.8040, 7304.59.8045, 7304.59.8050, 7304.59.8055, 7304.59.8060, 7304.59.8065, and 7304.59.8070. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive.
All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is dated concurrently with this notice. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the
Pursuant to sections 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
The Department is issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On October 7, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the
Cindy Robinson or George McMahon, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3797 or (202) 482-1167, respectively.
On October 7, 2015, the Department published the
The scope of this order includes certain lined paper products, typically school supplies (for purposes of this scope definition, the actual use of or labeling these products as school supplies or non-school supplies is not a defining characteristic) composed of or including paper that incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical lines on ten or more paper sheets (there shall be no minimum page requirement for looseleaf filler paper) including but not limited to such products as single- and multi-subject notebooks, composition books, wireless notebooks, looseleaf or glued filler paper, graph paper, and laboratory notebooks, and with the smaller dimension of the paper measuring 6 inches to 15 inches (inclusive) and the larger dimension of the paper measuring 8
Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are:
• Unlined copy machine paper;
• writing pads with a backing (including but not limited to products commonly known as “tablets,” “note pads,” “legal pads,” and “quadrille pads”), provided that they do not have a front cover (whether permanent or removable). This exclusion does not apply to such writing pads if they consist of hole-punched or drilled filler paper;
• three-ring or multiple-ring binders, or notebook organizers incorporating such a ring binder provided that they do not include subject paper;
• index cards;
• printed books and other books that are case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap;
• newspapers;
• pictures and photographs;
• desk and wall calendars and organizers (including but not limited to such products generally known as “office planners,” “time books,” and “appointment books”);
• telephone logs;
• address books;
• columnar pads & tablets, with or without covers, primarily suited for the recording of written numerical business data;
• lined business or office forms, including but not limited to: pre-printed business forms, lined invoice pads and paper, mailing and address labels, manifests, and shipping log books;
• lined continuous computer paper;
• boxed or packaged writing stationary (including but not limited to products commonly known as “fine business paper,” “parchment paper”, and “letterhead”), whether or not containing a lined header or decorative lines;
• Stenographic pads (“steno pads”), Gregg ruled (“Gregg ruling” consists of a single- or double-margin vertical ruling line down the center of the page. For a six-inch by nine-inch stenographic pad, the ruling would be located approximately three inches from the left of the book), measuring 6 inches by 9 inches.
Also excluded from the scope of this order are the following trademarked products:
• Fly
• Zwipes
• FiveStar®Advance
• FiveStar Flex
Merchandise subject to this order is typically imported under headings 4811.90.9035, 4811.90.9080, 4820.30.0040, 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9050, 4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010, 4820.10.2020, 4820.10.2030, 4820.10.2040, 4820.10.2050, 4820.10.2060, and 4820.10.4000 of the HTSUS. The HTSUS headings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
As noted above, the Department received no comments concerning the
The final weighted-average dumping margins for the POR are as follows:
The Department shall determine and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in this review, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act.
In accordance with the Department's “automatic assessment” practice,
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on circular welded carbon quality steel pipe (CWP) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period of review January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.
Dana Mermelstein or Toby Vandall, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1391 and (202) 482-1664, respectively.
On July 1, 2015, the Department published the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party or parties that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, the petitioner withdrew its request for an administrative review within 90 days of the publication date of the
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries of CWP from the PRC. Countervailing duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice of rescission of administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled countervailing duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration Department of Commerce.
Stephanie Moore, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3692.
Section 702 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (as amended) (the Act) requires the Department of Commerce (the Department) to determine, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, whether any foreign government is providing a subsidy with respect to any article of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty, as defined in section 702(h) of the Act, and to publish quarterly updates to the type and amount of those subsidies. We hereby provide the Department's quarterly update of subsidies on articles of cheese that were imported during the periods July 1, 2015, through September 30, 2015.
The Department has developed, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, information on subsidies, as defined in section 702(h) of the Act, being provided either directly or indirectly by foreign governments on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty. The appendix to this notice lists the country, the subsidy program or programs, and the gross and net amounts of each subsidy for which information is currently available. The Department will incorporate additional programs which are found to constitute subsidies, and additional information on the subsidy programs listed, as the information is developed.
The Department encourages any person having information on foreign government subsidy programs which benefit articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty to submit such information in writing to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230.
This determination and notice are in accordance with section 702(a) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that James D. Darling, Whale Trust, P.O. Box 384, Tofino, BC V0R2Z0 Canada, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on humpback whales (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before March 7, 2016.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Rosa L. González or Carrie Hubard, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant proposes to address a variety of questions regarding social organization, behavior, and communication of humpback whales using passive acoustic monitoring, active playbacks, suction cup and dart tagging, biopsy sampling, underwater photography/videography, photo ID and photogrammetry during aerial and vessel surveys. Research would occur off Hawaii (primarily off west Maui), and Alaska. Incidental harassment is requested for the following non-target species: North Pacific right whales (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public hearings and webinar.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold nine public hearings and one webinar to solicit public comments on Coastal Migratory Pelagics (CMP) Amendment 26—Changes in Allocations, Stock Boundaries and Sale Provisions for Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Migratory Groups of King Mackerel; and a Framework Action to Modify Commercial Gear Requirements for Yellowtail Snapper (in Key West and Sarasota, FL only).
The public hearings will be held February 22-March 3, 2016. The meetings will begin at 6 p.m. and will conclude no later than 9 p.m. For specific dates and times, see
The public documents can be obtained by contacting the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; (813) 348-1630 or on their Web site at
Douglas Gregory, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.
The agenda for the following nine hearings and one webinar are as follows: Council staff will brief the public on CMP Amendment 26—Changes in Allocations, Stock Boundaries and Sale Provisions for Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Migratory Groups of King Mackerel; and a Framework Action to Modify Commercial Gear Requirements for Yellowtail Snapper (in Key West and Sarasota, FL only). Staff will then open the meeting for questions and public comments. The schedule is as follows:
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Compliance bulletin.
This document highlights existing obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for furnishers of consumer information to consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) to establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of information furnished to all CRAs. In recent reviews of the furnishing practices of financial institutions, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) found that some financial institutions are not compliant with their obligations with regard to furnishing to specialty CRAs, including the furnishing of deposit account information. An institution's relevant policies and procedures must encompass the institution's furnishing to all types of CRAs.
The CFPB will continue to monitor furnishers' compliance with these obligations to ensure they meet their accuracy and integrity obligations for any information that they furnish.
The Bureau released this Compliance Bulletin on its Web site on February 3, 2016.
Anthony Rodriguez, Attorney, 202-435-9726; or Laurie Sellick, Attorney, 202-435-7262, Office of Supervision Policy.
The CFPB issues this bulletin to emphasize the obligation of furnishers
The supervisory experience of the Bureau suggests that some financial institutions are not compliant with their obligations under Regulation V with regard to furnishing to specialty CRAs. Furnishers' establishment and implementation of reasonable policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of information are essential components of a fair and accurate credit reporting system. Such policies and procedures protect against the furnishing of inaccurate information that could potentially cause adverse consequences for consumers when included in a credit report, such as being denied a loan at a more favorable interest rate or being unable to open a transaction account.
While furnisher obligations under Regulation V are the focus of this bulletin, the CFPB recognizes that both furnishers and CRAs have independent obligations under the FCRA related to the accuracy of information and to the investigation of consumer disputes. The CFPB expects both furnishers and CRAs to comply with their respective duties.
Furnishers must establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of information relating to consumers that they furnish to CRAs.
These policies and procedures must encompass the institution's furnishing to all types of CRAs. For example, if an institution furnishes both credit information to nationwide CRAs and deposit account information to nationwide specialty CRAs, that institution must consider the appropriate approach to each type of furnishing in its policies and procedures in order to comply with Regulation V.
The CFPB will continue to monitor furnishers' compliance with the Regulation V requirement to establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of all furnished information. Furnishers must ensure that they have such policies and procedures in place with respect to all information furnished. If the CFPB determines that a furnisher has engaged in any acts or practices that violate Regulation V or other federal consumer financial laws and regulations, it will take appropriate supervisory and enforcement actions to address violations and seek all appropriate remedial measures, including redress to consumers.
This Compliance Bulletin summarizes existing requirements under the law and findings made in the course of exercising the Bureau's supervisory and enforcement authority, and is a non-binding general statement of policy articulating considerations relevant to the Bureau's exercise of its supervisory and enforcement authority. It is therefore exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a). The Bureau has determined that this Compliance Bulletin does not impose any new or revise any existing recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Wednesday February 10, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Room 837-C, Enter on the Fourth Floor, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.
A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.
National Security Agency, DoD.
Notice.
The National Security Agency hereby gives notice of its intent to grant Optio Labs, Inc. a revocable, non-assignable, partially exclusive, license to practice the following Government-Owned invention as described and claimed in United States Patent Number (USPN),7,904,278 B2, Method and Systems for Program Execution Integrity Measurement; and USPN, 8,326,579, Method and Systems for Program Execution Integrity Measurement.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license has until February 19, 2016 to file written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Written objections are to be filed with the National Security Agency Technology Transfer Program, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6843, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6843.
Linda L. Burger, Director, Technology Transfer Program, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6843, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6843, telephone (443) 634-3518.
The prospective partially exclusive license will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States Government as represented by the National Security Agency.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of advisory committee meeting.
The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Board on Coastal Engineering Research. This meeting is open to the public.
The Board on Coastal Engineering Research will meet from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on March 3, 2016, and reconvene from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. on March 4, 2016.
All sessions will be held in the Governor's Hall, Governor Calvert House, Historic Inns of Annapolis, 58 State Circle, Annapolis, MD 21401. All sessions are open to the public. For more information about the Board, please visit
Colonel Bryan S. Green, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, phone 601-634-2513, or
The meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The Board on Coastal Engineering Research provides broad policy guidance and reviews plans for the conduct of research and the development of research projects in consonance with the needs of the coastal engineering field and the objectives of the U.S. Army Chief of Engineers.
On Friday morning, March 4, 2016, the Board will reconvene to discuss NOAA/USACE Coastal Collaboration, Research from the Dune Management Challenges on Developed Coasts Meeting, and an Update and Discussion on the August 2016 Meeting in Puerto Rico.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The Alaska District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to identify and analyze the potential impacts associated with the development of the Alpine C and Nanushuk reservoirs, including construction and operation of the proposed project. The Corps will be evaluating a permit application for work under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The EIS will be used to support the permit decision in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Please send written comments to Ms. Janet Post, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Division CEPOA-RD, P.O. Box 6898, JBER, AK 99506-0898; by email:
Questions about the proposed action and the EIS can be answered by: Ms. Janet Post, Regulatory Division, by telephone: (907) 753-2831 or toll free from within Alaska: (800) 478-2712, by fax: (907) 753-5567, by email:
The Project would include 11.1 miles of gravel infield roads, comprised of a 4.0-mile DS2 road and a 7.1 mile DS3 road, to provide all-season ground transport between the Nanushuk Pad and DS2 and DS3. And a 13.8-mile gravel access road to provide all-season ground transport between the Nanushuk Pad and the existing road network at Kuparuk DS2M.
The applicant would produce multiphase product from the three drill sites and transport it to the Nanushuk Pad via multiphase pipelines for processing. Water separated from the oil would be transported back to the drill sites via water injection pipelines to be reinjected back into the subsurface formation to help maintain pressure and enhance oil production. Separated gas would be used for power generation at the CPF, and the remainder would be transported back to the drill sites via gas lift pipelines for gas lift. Excess gas, if any, would be injected into a dedicated injection well at DS2. Sales-quality oil processed at the Nanushuk Pad would be transported to the tie-in pad at the Kuparuk CPF2 via the Nanushuk Pipeline.
(1) Public involvement: The Corps invites full public participation to promote open communication on the issues to be addressed in preparation of the EIS regarding the proposed action.
(2) Scoping meetings: The Corps plans to hold scoping meetings in Barrow, Nuiqsut, Anchorage, and Fairbanks. Public notices will be placed in local newspapers and other public places, and will be communicated directly with the smaller communities, once dates are confirmed.
(3) Information about these meetings and meeting dates will be published locally, posted at the project Web site, and available by contacting the Corps as previously described. A description of the proposed project will be posted on the project Web site prior to these meetings to help the public focus their scoping comments.
(4) The Corps will serve as the lead Federal agency in the preparation of the EIS. Agencies that are being invited to act as Cooperating Agencies include the following:
(5) The EIS will analyze the potential social, economic, physical, and biological impacts to the affected areas. Numerous issues will be analyzed in depth in the EIS. These issues include, but are not limited to, the following: The construction and operation of the facilities and their effect upon the community of Nuiqsut; subsistence; cultural resources; air quality; socioeconomics; alternatives; secondary and cumulative impacts; threatened and endangered species including critical habitat; hydrology and wetlands; and fish and wildlife.
(6) Other Environmental Review and Consultation Requirements: Other environmental review and consultation requirements include Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation.
(7) Land and Resource Ownership: Kuukpik Corporation owns the surface estate of lands at the drill sites and lands traversed by the infield roads and infield pipelines, and portions of the access road and Nanushuk Pipeline. The State of Alaska, through the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), manages the majority of surface lands traversed by the Nanushuk Pipeline and access road. The Project will access subsurface mineral resources that are shared by the State of Alaska and the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC).
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of public hearings.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces public hearings to receive comments on the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of DOE's proposed Federal action of issuing a Presidential permit to Northern Pass LLC (the Applicant) to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a new electric transmission line across the U.S./Canada border in northern New Hampshire.
The U.S. Forest Service—White Mountain National Forest (USFS), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—New England District (USACE), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 1 (EPA), and the New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning (NHOEP) are cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS.
The New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee (SEC) was established by the New Hampshire legislature for the review, approval, monitoring and enforcement of compliance in the planning, siting, construction and operation of energy facilities in the State of New Hampshire.
On October 19, 2015, Northern Pass Transmission, LLC and Public Service Company of New Hampshire d/b/a Eversource Energy (collectively Applicant), filed an Application for a Certificate of Site and Facility (Application) seeking the issuance of a Certificate of Site and Facility approving the siting, construction, and operation of a 192-mile transmission line and associated facilities with a capacity rating of up to 1,090 MW from the Canadian border in Pittsburg in Coos County to Deerfield in Rockingham County (Project). New Hampshire law, R.S.A. Section 162-H:10(I-c), requires that within 90 days after acceptance of an application for a certificate, that the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee shall hold at least one public hearing in each county where the proposed facility will be located.
The public review period to receive comments on the Draft EIS closes on April 4, 2016, see the Public Participation section for more information about submitting comments.
DOE and the cooperating agencies and the New Hampshire SEC will conduct joint public hearings to receive oral and written comments concerning the project on March 7 and March 10, 2016. DOE and the cooperating agencies will conduct public hearings to receive oral and written comments on the Draft EIS at the following locations commencing at the times identified:
Requests to pre-register to provide oral comments at a public hearing should be addressed to the Northern Pass EIS Team at this email address:
Comments on the Draft EIS can be submitted verbally during public hearings or in writing to Mr. Brian Mills at: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Mr. Brian Mills at the addresses above, or at 202-586-8267.
The public comment period on the Draft EIS started on July 31, 2015, with the publication in the
The public review period to receive comments on the Draft EIS closes on April 4, 2016. Please mark envelopes and electronic mail subject lines as “NP Draft EIS Comments.” Written comments should be submitted by April 4, 2016. Written and oral comments will be given equal weight and all comments received or postmarked by that date will be considered by DOE in preparing the Final EIS. Comments submitted (
The documents are available online at
Printed copies of the documents may be obtained by contacting Mr. Mills at the above address.
This notice identifies the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) staff's revised schedule for the completion of the final environmental impact statement (EIS) for Golden Pass Products, LLC and Golden Pass Pipeline, LLC's Golden Pass Liquefied Natural Gas Export Project. The previous notice of schedule, issued on June 26, 2015, identified March 4, 2016 as the issuance date.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the final EIS and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. Go to
Take notice that on January 29, 2016, MPS Merchant Services, Inc. submitted its Compliance Filing to Order on Rehearing of Opinion No. 536.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Coastal Bend Header Project, proposed by Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) in the above-referenced docket. Gulf South requests authorization to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities in various counties in Texas to expand the capacity of its pipeline system to 1.42 billion cubic feet per day to provide firm transportation service to the Freeport LNG Development, L.P. (Freeport LNG) terminal located on Quintana Island near Freeport, Texas.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Coastal Bend Header Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The proposed Project includes the following facilities in Texas:
• Install approximately 66-miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline lateral from Wharton County, Texas to the existing Freeport Liquefied Natural Gas Stratton Ridge meter site in Brazoria County;
• construct one new gas-fired 83,597 horsepower (hp) Wilson Compressor Station in Wharton County;
• construct one new electric motor-driven 26,400-hp Brazos Compressor Station in Fort Bend County;
• construct one new electric motor-driven 10,700-hp North Houston Compressor Station in Harris County;
• install piping modifications at the existing Goodrich Compressor Station in Polk County to allow for bi-directional flow; and
• install additional gas-fired 15,748-hp compressor unit and modifications at the former Magasco Compressor Station in Sabine County to allow for bi-directional flow.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before February 29, 2016.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments with the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP15-517-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at 202-502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature located on the Commission's Web site (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
The above-referenced meeting will be via Web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via Web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via Web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On June 17, 2015, Mr. Adam R. Rousselle, II, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Blue Marsh Dam Water Power Project (project) to be located on Tulpehocken Creek, in Lower Heidelberg Township and Bern Township in Berks County, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The project would consist of the following: (1) A proposed 6-foot-diameter penstock; (2) a proposed powerhouse containing two generating units having a total installed capacity of 2,500 kilowatts; (3) a tailrace returning flow to Tulpehocken Creek; (4) a proposed 0.9-mile-long, 12.47-kilovolt transmission line interconnecting with the Pennsylvania Power Company system; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an average annual generation of about 9,943,000 kilowatt-hours, which would be sold to a local utility.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene is: 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, protests, and motions to intervene using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the project would affect the interests of interstate or foreign commerce. The Commission also determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a navigable waterway; (2) would occupy public lands or reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or (4) would be located on a non-navigable stream over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction and would be constructed or enlarged after 1935.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTESTS”, and “MOTIONS TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Docket Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any Motion to Intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
p.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
New Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM Bank), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
EXIM Bank's borrowers, financial institution policy holders and guaranteed lenders provide this form to U.S. exporters, who certify to the eligibility of their exports for EXIM Bank support. For direct loans and loan guarantees, the completed form is required to be submitted at time of disbursement and held by either the guaranteed lender or EXIM Bank. For MT insurance, the completed forms are held by the financial institution, only to be submitted to EXIM Bank in the event of a claim filing.
EXIM Bank uses the referenced form to obtain information from exporters regarding the export transaction and content sourcing. These details are necessary to determine the value and legitimacy of EXIM Bank financing support and claims submitted. It also provides the financial institutions a check on the export transaction's eligibility at the time it is fulfilling a financing request.
The information collection tool can be reviewed at:
Comments must be received on or before April 4, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
Annual Number of Respondents: 30.
Estimated Time per Respondent: 30 minutes.
Annual Burden Hours: 15 hours.
Frequency of Reporting of Use: As required.
Reviewing time per year: 0.5 hours.
Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.
Average Cost per Year: (time*wages) $21.25.
Benefits and Overhead: 20%.
Total Government Cost: $25.5.
Farm Credit Administration.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).
The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on February 11, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.
Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.
Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090. Submit attendance requests via email to
Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. Please send an email to
• January 14, 2016
Please note that the time for the Federal Communications Commission Open Meeting is rescheduled from 10:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
The Federal Communications Commission will consider the Agenda items listed on the Commission's Notice of January 21 at the Open Meeting on Thursday, January 28, 2016, scheduled to commence at 1:00 p.m. in room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC.
The prompt and orderly conduct of the Commission's business requires this change and no earlier announcement was practicable.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communication Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before March 7, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
47 CFR 74.787(a)(5)(v) states that an application for an digital to digital replacement translator may be filed by a full power television station that can demonstrate that a portion of its digital service area will not be served by its full, post-incentive auction digital facilities. The service area of the replacement translator shall be limited to only a demonstrated loss area.
However, an applicant for a replacement digital television translator may propose a
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10033 Suburban Federal Savings Bank, Crofton, Maryland (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Suburban Federal Savings Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective February 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10264 Community Security Bank, New Prague, MN (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Community Security Bank (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective February 1, 2016 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10360 Cortez Community Bank, Brooksville, Florida (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Cortez Community Bank (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective February 1, 2016 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10203 State Bank of Aurora, Aurora, Minnesota (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of State Bank of Aurora (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective February 1, 2016 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
10:00 a.m., Thursday, February 11, 2016.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).
Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than February 17, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 29, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1.
2.
Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Request for letters of nomination and resumes.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) established the Health Information Technology Policy Committee (HIT Policy Committee) and gave the Comptroller General responsibility for appointing 13 of its 20 members. As a result of terms ending in April 2016, GAO is accepting nominations of individuals for three openings on the committee in the following categories of representation or expertise required in ARRA: Advocate for patients or consumers, representative of a health plan or third party payer, and representative of purchasers or employers. For appointments to the HIT Policy Committee to be made in April 2016 in these categories, I am announcing the following: Letters of nomination and resumes should be submitted by March 2, 2016 to ensure adequate opportunity for review and consideration of nominees. Acknowledgement of submissions will be provided within one week of submission. Please contact Mary Giffin at (202) 512-3710 if you do not receive an acknowledgment.
Email:
GAO Office of Public Affairs, (202) 512-4800. 42 U.S.C. § 300jj-12.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announce the following meeting of the aforementioned committee.
8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., EST, February 24, 2016
CDC, Tom Harkin Global Communications Center, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Building 19, Kent “Oz” Nelson Auditorium, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.
The meeting will be webcast live via the World Wide Web; for instructions and more information on ACIP please visit the ACIP Web site:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Stephanie Thomas, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-A27, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, telephone 404-639-8836; Email
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) PAR 15-303, Occupational Safety and Health Education and Research Centers (ERC).
6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m., February 22, 2016 (Closed)
7:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., February 23, 2016 (Closed)
7:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., February 24, 2016 (Closed)
Hilton Alexandria Old Town, 1767 King Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, Telephone: (703) 837-0440.
George Bockosh, M.S., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, NIOSH, 2400 Century Center Parkway NE., 4th Floor, Mailstop E-74, Atlanta, Georgia 30345, Telephone: (412) 386-6465,
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting for the aforementioned subcommittee:
11:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m., EST, February 24, 2016.
Audio Conference Call via FTS Conferencing.
In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to CDC. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, and will expire on August 3, 2017.
The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.
Theodore Katz, Designated Federal Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E-20, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone (513) 533-6800, Toll Free 1(800) CDC-INFO, Email
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The CDC is soliciting nominations for possible membership on the Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health (ICSH), Office on Smoking and Health (OSH).
The ICSH consists of five members appointed by the Secretary from physicians and scientists who represent private entities involved in informing the public about the health effects of smoking. The members are selected by the Secretary, HHS. The committee provides advice and guidance to the Secretary, HHS, and the Director, CDC regarding (a) coordination of all research and education programs and other activities within the Department and with other Federal, State, local and private agencies and (b) establishment and maintenance of liaison with appropriate private entities, Federal agencies, and State and local public health agencies with respect to smoking and health activities.
Nominations are being sought for individuals who have expertise and qualifications necessary to contribute to the accomplishment of the committee's objectives. More information is available on the ICSH, OSH Web site:
Nominees will be selected based on expertise in the field of tobacco control and multi-disciplinary expertise in public health. Additionally, desirable qualifications include: (1) Knowledge of emerging tobacco control policies and experience in analyzing, evaluating, and interpreting Federal, State and/or local health or regulatory policy; or (2) knowledge of emerging tobacco products and the evolving environment of tobacco control and expertise in developing or contributing to the development of policies and/or programs; or (3) familiarity of rapid and emerging surveillance systems that will allow for the timely evaluation of tobacco product regulation and/or the impact of tobacco control interventions.
Federal employees will not be considered for membership.
Members may be invited to serve for terms of up to four years. The U.S. Department of Health and Human
Candidates should submit the following items:
• Current
• A letter of recommendation from person(s) not employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
• A statement indicating the nominee's willingness to potentially serve as a member of the Committee.
Nominations should be submitted electronically or in writing, and must be postmarked by February 19, 2016 and sent to: Ms. Monica Swann, NCCDPHP, CDC, 395 E. Street SW., Room 9167, MS P06, Washington, DC 20024. (Email address:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This quarterly notice lists CMS manual instructions, substantive and interpretive regulations, and other
It is possible that an interested party may need specific information and not be able to determine from the listed information whether the issuance or regulation would fulfill that need. Consequently, we are providing contact persons to answer general questions concerning each of the addenda published in this notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is responsible for administering the Medicare and Medicaid programs and coordination and oversight of private health insurance. Administration and oversight of these programs involves the following: (1) Furnishing information to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, health care providers, and the public; and (2) maintaining effective communications with CMS regional offices, state governments, state Medicaid agencies, state survey agencies, various providers of health care, all Medicare contractors that process claims and pay bills, National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), health insurers, and other stakeholders. To implement the various statutes on which the programs are based, we issue regulations under the authority granted to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under sections 1102, 1871, 1902, and related provisions of the Social Security Act (the Act) and Public Health Service Act. We also issue various manuals, memoranda, and statements necessary to administer and oversee the programs efficiently.
Section 1871(c) of the Act requires that we publish a list of all Medicare manual instructions, interpretive rules, statements of policy, and guidelines of general applicability not issued as regulations at least every 3 months in the
This quarterly notice provides only the specific updates that have occurred in the 3-month period along with a hyperlink to the full listing that is available on the CMS Web site or the appropriate data registries that are used as our resources. This is the most current up-to-date information and will be available earlier than we publish our quarterly notice. We believe the Web site list provides more timely access for beneficiaries, providers, and suppliers. We also believe the Web site offers a more convenient tool for the public to find the full list of qualified providers for these specific services and offers more flexibility and “real time” accessibility. In addition, many of the Web sites have listservs; that is, the public can subscribe and receive immediate notification of any updates to the Web site. These listservs avoid the need to check the Web site, as notification of updates is automatic and sent to the subscriber as they occur. If assessing a Web site proves to be difficult, the contact person listed can provide information.
This notice is organized into 15 addenda so that a reader may access the subjects published during the quarter covered by the notice to determine whether any are of particular interest. We expect this notice to be used in concert with previously published notices. Those unfamiliar with a description of our Medicare manuals should view the manuals at
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, announces plans to submit a new Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before April 4, 2016.
Submit your comments to
Information Collection Clearance staff,
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier HHS-OS-0990-New-60D for reference.
Million Hearts focuses on aligning the efforts of federal agencies, states, regions, health systems, communities and individuals towards this common goal, ensuring the coordination of public health, clinical care, and policy approaches to this complex problem. Previous research has shown that collaborative efforts among organizations with a variety of programming, resources and skill sets result in higher levels of community impact. Integrated efforts to address public health issues by involving multiple stakeholders are predicted to result in better health outcomes than programs that do not use a collaborative approach.
ASPE is requesting comment on the burden for this study that is examining the Million Hearts public-private partnership network. The goal of developing this activity is to examine the network to identify facilitators and barriers to effective communication and collaboration in addressing large and complex public health problems like cardiovascular disease. This project wants to take the lessons learned from this unique and massive collaboration and apply them to other efforts to improve the health and well-being of Americans.
OS specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
This notice announces the availability of test tools and test procedures approved by the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology for the testing of Health IT Modules to the 2015 Edition health IT certification criteria under the ONC Health IT Certification Program. The approved test tools and test procedures are identified on the ONC Web site at:
Alicia Morton, Director, ONC Health IT Certification Program, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, 202-690-7151.
On January 7, 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a final rule establishing a permanent certification program for the purposes of testing and certifying health information technology (“Establishment of the Permanent Certification Program for Health Information Technology,” (76 FR 1262) (“Permanent Certification Program final rule”). The permanent certification program was renamed the ONC HIT Certification Program in a final rule published on September 4, 2012 (77 FR 54163) (“2014 Edition final rule”), and subsequently renamed the ONC Health IT Certification Program in a final rule published on October 16, 2015 (80 FR 62601) (“2015 Edition final rule”). In the preamble of the Permanent Certification Program final rule, we stated that when the National
In the 2015 Edition final rule, the Secretary adopted a new edition of certification criteria (“2015 Edition”). The National Coordinator has approved test tools and test procedures for testing Health IT Modules to the 2015 Edition under the ONC Health IT Certification Program. These approved test tools and test procedures are identified on the ONC Web site at:
42 U.S.C. 300jj-11.
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces dates for meetings of a public advisory committee of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). These meeting will be open to the public.
For meeting locations, Web conference information, and the most up-to-date information, please visit the calendar on the ONC Web site,
Persons attending ONC's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing wireless access or access to electrical outlets.
ONC welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings. Seating is limited at the location, and ONC will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Michelle Consolazio at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.
ONC is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App. 2).
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the following advisory committee meeting.
Should you require reasonable accommodation, please contact the CDC Office of Equal Employment Opportunity on (301) 458-4EEO (4336) as soon as possible.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Health and Human Services Department announces an update to the meeting address of the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee (hereafter referred to as “the Committee”) on Monday, February 1, 2016.
The meeting will be held on Monday, February 1, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) and is open to the public.
The meeting will be held in Room 505A of the Hubert Humphrey Federal Building, 200 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20201.
Scott R. Smith, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, at the Office of Health Policy, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20201, (202) 690-6870.
Update: The meeting location has changed. The new meeting location is Room 505A of the Hubert Humphrey Federal Building, 200 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20201.
The Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee (“the Committee”) is authorized by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, 42 U.S.C 1395ee. This Committee is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C App.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees. In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Committee is to review physician-focused payment model proposals and prepare recommendations regarding whether such models meet criteria that will be established through rulemaking by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (the Secretary). The Committee is composed of 11 members appointed by the Comptroller General with staggering terms of 1, 2, and 3 years as specified in the authorizing legislation.
The Committee will receive information about MACRA implementation and about payment models currently being tested by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation within the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
The first meeting (February 1, 2016) is open to the public; however, attendance is limited to space available. Priority will be given to those who pre-register and attendance may be limited based on the number of registrants and the space available.
Persons wishing to attend this meeting, which is located on federal property, must register by following the instructions in the “Meeting Registration” section of this notice. A confirmation email will be sent to the registrants shortly after completing the registration process.
The following are the security and building guidelines:
Persons attending the meeting, including presenters, must be pre-registered and on the attendance list by the prescribed date.
Individuals who are not pre-registered in advance may not be permitted to enter the building and may be unable to attend the meeting.
Attendees must present a government-issued photo identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel before entering the building. Without a current, valid photo ID, persons may not be permitted entry to the building.
All persons entering the building must pass through a metal detector.
All items brought into the Humphrey Building including personal items, for example, laptops and cell phones are subject to physical inspection.
The public may enter the building 30 to 45 minutes before the meeting convenes.
Individuals requiring special accommodations must include the request for these services during registration.
The Secretary's Charter for the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee is available on the ASPE Web site at
The public may attend the meeting in-person or listen via audio teleconference. Space is limited and registration is
Name.
Company name.
Postal address.
Email address.
If sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation for a disability is needed, please contact Scott R. Smith, no later than January 22, 2016 at the contact information listed below.
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces dates for meetings of a public advisory committee of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology
General Function of the Committee: To provide recommendations to the National Coordinator on a policy framework for the development and adoption of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that permits the electronic exchange and use of health information as is consistent with the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan and that includes recommendations on the areas in which standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria are needed.
For meeting locations, web conference information, and the most up-to-date information, please visit the calendar on the ONC Web site,
Persons attending ONC's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing wireless access or access to electrical outlets.
ONC welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings. Seating is limited at the location, and ONC will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Michelle Consolazio at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.
ONC is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App. 2).
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the following advisory committee meeting.
At this meeting the Committee will hear presentations and hold discussions on several health data policy topics. The Committee will receive updates from the Department, including from the Office of the National Coordinator that will focus on the Interoperability Roadmap, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The Committee will discuss and take action on a recommendation letter stemming from the June 16-17, 2015 inaugural hearing of the Review Committee and approve the report “Advancing Community-Level Core Measurement: A Progress Report and Workshop Summary.” The Committee will further review its strategic plan for 2016 and all Subcommittees will report on their workplans and next steps. In addition, the Committee will be briefed on and discuss the recent implementation of ICD-10 as well as an overview of current challenges and opportunities regarding use of All Payer Claims Databases. After the plenary session adjourns, the Work Group on HHS Data Access and Use will continue strategic discussions on building a framework for guiding principles for data access and use. The times shown above are for the full Committee meeting. Subcommittee-specific topics will be addressed as part of the Full Committee schedule.
Should you require reasonable accommodation, please contact the CDC Office of Equal Employment Opportunity on (301) 458-4EEO (4336) as soon as possible.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) is soliciting comments from the public on its Draft Strategic Research Priorities, which will help inform Institute-solicited research activities over the next decade. The draft document is available through the NHLBI Strategic Visioning Web site (
To ensure consideration, written comments must be received by March 7, 2016.
The Draft Strategic Research Priorities can be viewed here: (
Dana Camak, Executive Assistant, Office of Science Policy, Engagement, Education, and Communications at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, NIH, 31 Center Dr., Building 31, Room 4A10, Bethesda, MD 20892-2480. Telephone: 301-496-4236. Email:
For more than 60 years, the NHLBI has supported research to reduce the burden of heart, lung, blood, and sleep disorders and diseases. For example, long-term research investments in cardiovascular basic, clinical and population sciences have contributed to a 78% decrease in death rates due to coronary heart disease, a greater understanding of the complexity of chronic lung disease, and to an increase in life expectancy for persons with sickle cell disease from 14 years to 40-60 years. However, heart, lung, and blood diseases remain leading causes of death for American men and women, and we face ongoing health challenges such as an aging population, rising health care costs, and continued gender and racial disparities.
Over the last year, NHLBI has been engaged in a Strategic Visioning process that engages the NHLBI community to inform Institute-solicited research activities. The goals for the Strategic Visioning process span the NHLBI mission and include research on health and disease in heart, lung, blood, and sleep systems; the translation of research for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases; and the support of training and resources for biomedical researchers across the landscape.
The strength of the NHLBI's Strategic Visioning process rests in the collective input of the diverse perspectives within the heart, lung, blood, and sleep community, including, but not limited to, scientists, academic institutions, patient communities, and the general public, allowing these stakeholders the opportunity to identify and catalyze areas where targeted investments are needed. In spring of 2015, the community identified scientific opportunities (Compelling Questions, or CQs) and barriers to research progress (Critical Challenges, or CCs) facing heart, lung, blood, and sleep research. NHLBI leadership, staff, and advisory groups reviewed the ideas to identify the highest priorities for the Institute based on timeliness, feasibility, and overall ability to advance the fields of study.
Ultimately, more than 1,000 ideas were submitted to the Strategic Visioning Forum. Ideas came from all 50 states and from countries across the globe, representing diverse perspectives of scientists, academic institutions, patient communities, and the general public.
Together the NHLBI, its Board of Extramural Experts, and the NHLBI Advisory Council, refined and synthesized the CQs and CCs as appropriate, and organized them under Objectives. The resulting CQs and CCs, as delineated in the Draft Strategic Research Priorities document, address important research avenues and support the Institute's strategic goals. The Draft Strategic Research Priorities document is not meant to encompass NHLBI's entire research portfolio, but instead is meant to reflect those areas of study that are currently deemed to be the most important, timely, and feasible for the Institute to address in its targeted/solicited research portfolio in the next decade.
This notice invites public comment on NHLBI's Draft Strategic Research Priorities. We seek diverse perspectives including, but not limited to, that of patients, patient advocates, clinicians, and researchers, as well as federal agencies and for-profit and not-for-profit stakeholders. The comments will be important factors in finalizing the document and thereby shaping NHLBI's Institute-solicited future research directions.
This notice is for information and planning purposes only and should not be construed as a solicitation or as an obligation on the part of the Federal Government in general, the NIH, or the NHLBI specifically. The NHLBI does not intend to make any awards based on responses to this RFI or pay for the preparation of any information submitted or for the Government's use of such information.
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 meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of Federal advisory committee meeting.
The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee and its subcommittees will meet on March 1, 2, and 3, 2016, in Houston, TX, to discuss the safe and secure marine
Subcommittees will meet on Tuesday, March 1, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on Wednesday, March 2, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. The full committee will meet on Thursday, March 3, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. Please note that these meetings may close early if the Committee has completed its business.
The meetings will be held at the U.S. Coast Guard Sector Houston-Galveston, 13411 Hillard St. Houston, TX 77034. Foreign national attendees will be required to pre-register no later than 5 p.m. on February 12, 2016, to be admitted to the meeting. U.S. Citizen attendees will be required to pre-register no later than 5 p.m. on February 19, 2016, to be admitted to the meeting. To pre-register contact Lieutenant Cristina Nelson at
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the individual listed in the
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Committee as listed in the “Agenda” section below. Written comments for distribution to Committee members must be submitted no later than February 12, 2016 if you want the Committee members to be able to review your comments before the meeting, and must be identified by USCG-2016-0031. Written comments may be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Commander Evan Hudspeth, Designated Federal Official of the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1420, fax 202-372-8380, or
Notice of this meeting is given under the
The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee is an advisory committee authorized under section 871 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 United States Code 451, and is chartered under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The committee acts solely in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security through the Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Deputy Commandant for Operations on matters relating to safe and secure marine transportation of hazardous materials activities insofar as they relate to matters within the United States Coast Guard's jurisdiction. The Committee advises, consults with, and makes recommendations reflecting its independent judgment to the Secretary.
The subcommittee meetings will separately address the following tasks:
(1) Task Statement 13-06: Harmonization of Response and Carriage Requirement for Oil-Like Substances, including Biofuels and Biofuel Blends.
(2) Task Statement 13-03: Safety Standards for the Design of Vessels Carrying Natural Gas or Using Natural Gas as Fuel.
(3) Task Statement 13-07: Recommendations for Safety Standards for Ship to Ship Transfer of Hazardous Material Outside of the Baseline.
(4) Task Statement 13-01: Recommendations for Guidance on the Implementation of Revisions to MARPOL Annex II and the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (commonly known as IBC code) and 46 CFR 153 Regulatory Review.
(5) Task Statement 13-04: Improve Implementation and education of discharge requirements related to solid bulk cargo residues.
(6) Task Statement 15-01: Marine Vapor Control System (VCS) Certifying Entities (CE) Guidelines update and VCS supplementary guidance for the implementation of the final rule.
The task statements from the last committee meeting are located at Homeport at the following address:
The agenda for each subcommittee will include the following:
1. Review task statements, which are listed in paragraph (4) of the agenda for the March 3, 2016, meeting.
2. Work on tasks assigned in task statements mentioned above.
3. Public comment period.
4. Discuss and prepare proposed recommendations for the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee meeting on March 3, 2016, on tasks assigned in detailed task statements mentioned above.
The agenda for the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee meeting on March 3, 2016, is as follows:
1. Introductions and opening remarks.
2. Swear in newly appointed Committee members.
3. Coast Guard Leadership Remarks.
4. Public comment period.
5. Committee will review, discuss, and formulate recommendations on the following items:
a. Task Statement 13-06: Harmonization of Response and Carriage Requirement for Oil-Like Substances, including Biofuels and Biofuel Blends.
b. Task Statement 13-03: Safety Standards for the Design of Vessels Carrying Natural Gas or Using Natural Gas as Fuel.
c. Task Statement 13-07: Recommendations for Safety Standards for Ship to Ship Transfer of Hazardous Material Outside of the Baseline.
d. Task Statement 13-01: Recommendations for Guidance on the Implementation of Revisions to MARPOL Annex II and the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (commonly known as the IBC Code) and 46 CFR part 153 Regulatory Review.
e. Task Statement 13-04: Improve implementation and education of
f. Task Statement 15-01: Marine Vapor Control System (VCS) Certifying Entities (CE) Guidelines update and VCS supplementary guidance for the implementation of the final rule.
6. USCG presentations on the following items of interest:
a. Update on International Maritime Organization activities as they relate to the marine transportation of hazardous materials.
b. Update on U.S. regulations and policy initiatives as they relate to the marine transportation of hazardous materials.
7. Set next meeting date and location.
8. Set subcommittee meeting schedule.
A public comment period will be held during each Subcommittee and the full committee meeting concerning matters being discussed. Public comments will be limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Please contact Commander Evan Hudspeth, listed in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of Michigan (FEMA-3375-EM), dated January 16, 2016, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated January 16, 2016, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas of the State of Michigan described in the Governor's request as resulting from contaminated water beginning on April 25, 2014, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program. This emergency assistance is to provide water, water filters, water filter cartridges, water test kits, and other necessary related items for a period of no more than 90 days.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, David G. Samaniego, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following area of the State of Michigan has been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
Genesee County for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
This emergency assistance is to provide water, water filters, water filter cartridges, water test kits, and other necessary related items for a period of no more than 90 days for Genesee County.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Missouri (FEMA-4250-DR), dated January 21, 2016, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated January 21, 2016, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Missouri resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line winds, and flooding during the period of December 23, 2015 to January 9, 2016, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael L. Parker, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Missouri have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Barry, Barton, Camden, Cape Girardeau, Cole, Crawford, Franklin, Gasconade, Greene, Hickory, Jasper, Jefferson, Laclede, Lawrence, Lincoln, Maries, McDonald, Morgan, Newton, Osage, Phelps, Polk, Pulaski, Scott, St. Charles, St. Francois, St. Louis, Ste. Genevieve, Stone, Taney, Texas, Webster, and Wright Counties for Individual Assistance.
All areas within the State of Missouri are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Washington (FEMA-4249-DR), dated January 15, 2016, and related determinations.
Effective date: January 15, 2016.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated January 15, 2016, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Washington resulting from severe storms, straight-line winds, flooding, landslides, and mudslides during the period of November 12-21, 2015, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas J. Dargan, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Washington have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Chelan, Clallam, Garfield, Island, Jefferson, Kittitas, Lewis, Lincoln, Mason, Pend Oreille, Skamania, Snohomish, Spokane, Stevens, Wahkiakum, and Whitman Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Washington are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for State of Idaho (FEMA-4246-DR), dated December 23, 2015, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Dolph A. Diemont, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
This action terminates the appointment of Thomas J. Dargan as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4248-DR), dated January 4, 2016, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Mississippi is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of January 4, 2016.
Monroe and Prentiss Counties for Individual Assistance and Public Assistance.
Panola County for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).
Clay, Itawamba, and Tallahatchie Counties for Public Assistance.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Alabama (FEMA-4251-DR), dated January 21, 2016, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated January 21, 2016, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Alabama resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line winds, and flooding during the period of December 23-31, 2015, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Elizabeth Turner, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Alabama have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Autauga, Barbour, Blount, Bullock, Butler, Chambers, Cherokee, Clay, Cleburne, Coffee, Colbert, Conecuh, Covington, Crenshaw, Cullman, Dale, DeKalb, Elmore, Escambia, Fayette, Franklin, Geneva, Henry, Houston, Jackson, Lamar, Lawrence, Lee, Lowndes, Macon, Marion, Marshall, Monroe, Perry, Pike, Russell, St. Clair, Walker, and Winston Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Alabama are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals
Chemical and Biological Defense Division (CBD), Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency, Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of intent.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), through its Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA), Chemical Biological Defense Division (CBD) is implementing and executing an international foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccine and diagnostics field trial. The objective of the project is to evaluate a newly developed FMD vaccine(s) and companion diagnostic(s) in an FMDV endemic country. The specific goals of this project are to establish the efficacy of the newly developed replication-deficient adenovirus-vectored FMD (AdFMD) vaccine; the effectiveness, sensitivity, specificity, and ruggedness of a new companion diagnostic test (“3B ELISA”) under field conditions, and to provide data on the usage of a DIVA vaccine and companion diagnostic in an endemic disease situation which may be used to inform the U.S. response to an FMD outbreak. DHS anticipates that this project may lead to the development and fostering of partnerships and collaborations with industry, countries and national and international organizations that will result in a solid foundation that will facilitate the future development and testing of additional transboundary animal disease (TAD) vaccines and diagnostics.
CBD is seeking industry partners to enter into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA). It is envisioned that the primary role of the selected industry collaborator(s) will be to provide subject matter experts to inform the vaccine and diagnostic field trial design(s), country selection and regulatory processes, in addition to potentially developing, manufacturing and distributing or providing, the AdFMD experimental vaccines and companion ELISA diagnostic kits for the field trial.
Submit comments on or before March 7, 2016.
Mail comments and requests to participate to Dr. Roxann Motroni, (ATTN: Roxann Motroni, 245 Murray Lane SW., Washington, DC 20528-0075). Submit electronic comments and other data with the subject line “International FMD Field Trial Notice of Intent” to
Ensuring livestock resiliency across the United States is crucial to the economic success of the American livestock industry. Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is caused by a highly infectious virus that affects cloven-hoofed animals and causes high morbidity. While the animal health consequences are serious, the economic consequences are grave, since all trade of animals and animal products from the U.S. will cease. Worldwide, FMD eradication and control is difficult as it is costly, requires significant animal health infrastructure, and infection or vaccination with a single strain of a serotype often does not confer protection against other strains of the virus.
Many countries with periodic FMD outbreaks vaccinate with a “killed” vaccine produced by inactivating the FMD virus (FMDV) and adding an immune system stimulant called an adjuvant. The killed vaccine has several drawbacks, including the requirement for high biosecurity production facilities to reduce the risk of accidental release of live FMDV, and the need for costly, sophisticated, and consistent purification procedures to remove FMDV pieces that may cause animals vaccinated with the killed FMD vaccine to test FMD positive in 3B based diagnostic assays.
Because killed FMD vaccines vary in their ability to consistently differentiate infected from vaccinated animals (DIVA), under current regulations, killed FMD vaccine usage in an outbreak could result unnecessarily in the humane euthanasia of both vaccinated and infected animals.
The Department of Homeland Security, and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) scientists at Plum Island Animal Disease Center, working with industry partners have developed an effective AdFMD vaccine that does not required live FMDV for manufacturing and is also DIVA compatible, giving the U.S. a key component of implementing a vaccinate-to-live policy. In 2012, DHS S&T successfully pursued licensure for a single FMD serotype, A24 Cruzeiro, however this single vaccine will not protect against the multitude of other FMD serotypes/subtypes/topotypes that exist, thus DHS S&T has interest in continued development of additional serotype and broader spectrum vaccines. Since FMD is not endemic to the U.S., the goals of the International FMD Vaccine and Diagnostic Field Trial are to test the efficacy of these newly developed vaccines, and the DIVA compatibility of the vaccines using one or more companion ELISA diagnostic tests under natural exposure conditions.
Any selected industry collaborator would play a crucial role in the CRADA partnership to implement and execute the international FMD vaccine field trial. Each proposal must address item 1, and may address one or more of items 2-6:
1. Provide subject matter expertise for vaccine and companion ELISA diagnostic trial design, data analysis, country selection, and import and export regulations for biological products, be they licensed or experimental;
2. Manufacture, test, and release FMD vaccines (experimental AdFMD and/or currently licensed, killed vaccines) and companion ELISA diagnostic kits to be used in field trial;
3. Acquisition, transport, export, and import of the experimental and killed conventional vaccines, and companion ELISA diagnostic kits into the FMD endemic country;
4. Research and development capabilities to construct AdFMD vaccine candidates and/or produce pre-master seed AdFMD viruses for additional FMD serotypes/topotypes/lineages for which new vaccines may be required;
5. Real-time data analysis for the AdFMD field trial as the trial is conducted; and
6. Final data analysis once the international field trial is completed.
Any selected industry collaborator, depending on the terms of the CRADA, would likely benefit by acquiring:
1. Better understanding of FMD epidemiology in the FMD endemic country, which may allow for increased sales and marketing of a company's current inactivated FMD vaccine(s) and FMD ELISA diagnostic kit franchise and;
2. Pre-published knowledge of AdFMD vaccine performance during the field trial, as compared to the current inactivated FMD vaccines;
3. Pre-published knowledge of the ELISA diagnostic performance during the field trial;
4. Understanding of how the AdFMD vaccine may be used with a companion diagnostic test to better plan and execute FMD control and eradication strategies on the local, regional and national levels; and
5. Unique perspectives to better leverage existing public-public partnerships that will focus corporate stewardship toward more cost effective FMD control strategies associated with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) related to the FMD Progressive Control Programme.
The CRADA will be in effect for 5 years or 60 months from the effective date of the agreement.
DHS S&T reserves the right to not issue a CRADA in response to this announcement or to issue CRADAs to one or more prospective collaborator's proposals submitted in response to this announcement. DHS S&T will provide no funding for reimbursement of proposal development costs. Proposals (or any other material) submitted in response to this notice will not be returned. Proposals submitted are expected to be unclassified. If Proprietary Information is included in proposals, it must be properly marked as such. DHS S&T will select any CRADA collaborator(s) at its sole discretion on the basis of:
1. How well the proposal communicates the collaborators' understanding of and ability to meet the CRADA's goals and proposed timeline.
2. How well the proposal addresses the following criteria as they would be relevant to its proposal:
a. Availability, qualifications and willingness of subject matter experts to participate in interagency meetings and other teleconferences;
b. Capability of the collaborator to provide equipment and materials for FMD vaccine and diagnostic manufacturing;
c. Ability of the collaborator to produce experimental AdFMD vaccine(s) and licensed highly-purified inactivated FMD vaccine(s) for use in the field trial;
d. Ability of the collaborator to produce and provide companion ELISA diagnostic kits for use in the field trial;
e. Ability of the collaborator to work with appropriate regulatory authorities to allow for export of experimental and licensed FMD vaccines and import of these materials into a partner country;
f. Ability of the collaborator to work with appropriate regulatory authorities to allow for export of companion ELISA diagnostic kits and import of these materials into a partner country.
Participation in this CRADA does not imply nor create any obligation on DHS's part for the future purchase of any materials, equipment, or services from the collaborating entities, and non-Federal CRADA participants will not be excluded from any future DHS S&T procurements based solely on their participation in this CRADA.
CRADAs are authorized by the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, as amended and codified by 15 U.S.C. 3710a. DHS, as an executive agency under 5 U.S.C. 105, is a Federal agency for the purposes of 15 U.S.C. 3710a and may enter into CRADAs. DHS delegated the authority to conduct CRADAs to the Science and Technology Directorate and its laboratories.
Information Sharing Environment (ISEO)/Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), DHS.
Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Homeland Security Information Network Advisory Council (HSINAC) calls a virtual meeting of its membership to receive all relevant information and facilitate development of recommendations to the HSIN Program Management Office (PMO) regarding the following major issue areas: (1) Programmatic business process enhancements for achieving enhanced requirements management and governance for HSIN's users, (2) continuous system protection through advanced security testing; and (3) HSIN's infrastructure and support model enhancements through hosting and application services.
The HSINAC will meet Tuesday, February 16, 2016 from 1:00-2:30 p.m. EST via conference call and HSIN Connect, an online web-conferencing tool, both of which will be made available to members of the general public. Please note that the meeting may end early if the committee has completed its business.
The meeting will be held virtually via HSIN Connect, an online web-conferencing tool at
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Allison Buchinski,
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the committee. Comments must be submitted in writing no later than February 10, must be identified by the docket number—DHS-2016-0007, and may be submitted by
•
•
•
•
A public comment period will be held during the meeting on Tuesday, February 16, 2015 from 2:00-2:15 p.m. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the public comment period may take place before the time indicated, as it will follow the last call for comments from the committee members. Contact one of the individuals listed below to register as a speaker.
Designated Federal Officer, Michael Brody,
The Homeland Security Information Network Advisory Committee (HSINAC) is an advisory body to the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN) Program Office. This committee provides advice and recommendations to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on matters relating to HSIN. These matters include system requirements, operating policies, community organization, knowledge management, interoperability and federation with other systems, and any other aspect of HSIN that supports the operations of DHS and its Federal, State, territorial, local, tribal, international, and private sector mission partners. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.
The agenda will consist of the following major components.
1. There will be a discussion between the HSIN Program and members of the committee in the following key areas:
a. Welcome new members to the HSINAC through round table introductions and provide an overview of roles and responsibilities.
b. An Introduction to the Information Sharing Environment Office (ISEO)—Provide embers with an overview of the office and HSIN's recent alignment with ISEO and the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO).
c. The State of HSIN—Provide members with a strategic update on HSIN's FY15 accomplishments, challenges, and FY16 outlook.
d. Focused Mission Growth—Members will participate in a facilitated feedback session that will help to ensure HSIN's goals, work effort and business processes are in alignment with and driven by stakeholder needs.
2. HSIN PMO will formally task the HSINAC to offer recommendations on the issue of how HSIN achieves growth in its user base and/or mission application, and the business process enhancements the Program must make to advance its requirements management processes and governance for HSIN's users.
3. HSIN PMO will formally task the HSINAC to offer recommendations on the issue of support for procurement activities around advanced security and cybersecurity testing to ensure protection of the system and its growing user base.
4. HSIN PMO will formally task the HSINAC to offer recommendations on the issue of upcoming infrastructure and system support enhancements with the goal of reducing the risk of system downtime due to aging equipment and older support models, as well as, mitigate funding gaps for these enhancements and future development activities.
5. Public comment period.
6. Committee Deliberation & Voting.
7. Closing Remarks.
8. Adjournment of the meeting.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Brian Siebenlist, Director, Office of Housing Counseling, Policy and Grants Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-5415 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Mr. Siebenlist.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) 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) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice of proposed information collection.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
As communities begin to implement ConnectHome in 2016 and connect residents to internet within their homes, this telephone survey will illuminate how families are taking advantage of ConnectHome. The telephone survey will explore ConnectHome subscribers' previous broadband access, current and planned use patterns, and current and anticipated benefits of their at-home high-speed Internet access. The survey will particularly focus on educational Internet use such as completing homework, connecting parents with educators, and applying to college.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) 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) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
In notice document 2016-01511 beginning on page 4926 in the issue of Thursday, January 28, 2016, make the following correction:
1. On page 4926, in the third column, in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a public meeting of the Trinity River Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG). The TAMWG is a Federal advisory committee that affords stakeholders the opportunity to give policy, management, and technical input concerning Trinity River (California) restoration efforts to the Trinity Management Council (TMC). The TMC interprets and recommends policy, coordinates and reviews management actions, and provides organizational budget oversight.
The meeting will be held at the Trinity River Restoration Program Office, 1313 South Main Street, Weaverville, CA 96093.
Joseph C. Polos, by mail at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521; by telephone at 707-822-7201 or by email at
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., we announce that the Trinity River Adaptive Management Working Group will hold a meeting.
The TAMWG affords stakeholders the opportunity to give policy, management, and technical input concerning Trinity River (California) restoration efforts to the TMC. The TMC interprets and recommends policy, coordinates and reviews management actions, and provides organizational budget oversight.
• Designated Federal Officer (DFO) update;
• TMC Chair update;
• Executive Director and Trinity River Restoration Program (TRRP) staff update;
• Workgroup update;
• TMC Current issues;
• Flow update;
• Public comment; and
• 2015 Run size.
The final agenda will be posted on the Internet at
Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the TAMWG to consider during the meeting. Written statements must be received by the date listed in “Public Input,” so that the information may be available to the TAMWG for their consideration prior to this meeting. Written statements must be supplied to Elizabeth Hadley in one of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, one electronic copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, PowerPoint, or rich text file).
Registered speakers who wish to expand on their oral statements, or those who wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, may submit written statements to Elizabeth Hadley up to 7 days after the meeting.
Summary minutes of the meeting will be maintained by Elizabeth Hadley (see
Office of the Secretary, National Invasive Species Council, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, on behalf of the interdepartmental National Invasive Species Council (NISC), proposes to appoint new members to the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC). The Secretary of the Interior, acting as administrative lead, is requesting nominations for qualified persons to serve as members of the ISAC.
Nominations must be postmarked by February 18, 2016.
Nominations should be sent to Jamie K. Reaser, Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council Secretariat (OS/NISC), by regular/express mail: 1849 C Street NW., (Mailstop 3530), Washington, DC 20240 and email:
Kelsey Brantley, Program Specialist and ISAC Coordinator, at (202) 208-4122, fax: (202) 208-4118, or by email at
Executive Order (EO) 13122 authorized the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) to provide interdepartmental coordination, planning, and leadership for the Federal Government on the prevention, eradication, and control of invasive species. NISC is currently comprised of thirteen Federal Departments and Agencies. The Co-chairs of NISC are the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce. The Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) advises NISC. NISC is requesting nominations for senior-level professionals to serve on the ISAC.
Nominations that were submitted in response to the
NISC provides high-level interdepartmental coordination of Federal invasive species actions and works with other Federal and non-Federal groups to address invasive species issues at national and international levels. NISC duties, as outlined in EO 13112 are to: oversee implementation of EO 13112, while working to ensure that the Federal agency activities concerning invasive species are coordinated, complementary, cost-efficient, and effective; encourage planning and action at local, tribal, state, regional, and ecosystem-based level to achieve strategic goals; develop recommendations for international cooperation; work with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to develop guidance to Federal Agencies pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); facilitate development of a coordinated network among Federal Agencies to document, evaluate, and monitor invasive species impacts; and prepare, issue (implement), and update a National Invasive Species Management Plan (Management Plan).
ISAC is regulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA; 5 U.S.C. App. 2). At the request of NISC, ISAC provides advice to NISC member Departments and Agencies on topics related to NISC's aforementioned duties. As a multi-stakeholder advisory committee, ISAC is intended to play a key role in recommending plans and actions to be taken at local, tribal, state, regional, and ecosystem-based levels to achieve the goals and objectives of the Management Plan. It is hoped that, collectively, ISAC will represent the views of the broad range of individuals and communities knowledgeable of and affected by invasive species.
Prospective members of ISAC need to be senior-level professionals with expertise relevant to the prevention, eradication, and/or control of invasive species who have demonstrated a high degree of capacity for: Advising individuals in leadership positions, team work, project management, tracking relevant Federal government programs and policy making procedures, and networking with and representing their peer-community of interest. ISAC members need not be scientists. Membership from a wide range of disciplines and professional sectors is encouraged. At this time, we are particularly interested in applications from senior-level representatives of tribes, small businesses, non-profit and/or private sector entities focused on landscape-scale management, and organizations specializing in innovative communication strategies.
After consultation with the other members of NISC, the Secretary of the Interior will appoint members to ISAC. NISC will select members based on their individual qualifications, as well as the overall need to achieve a balanced representation of viewpoints, subject matter expertise, regional knowledge, and representation of communities of interests. ISAC member terms are limited to three (3) years from their date of appointment to ISAC. Following completion of their first term, an ISAC member may request consideration for reappointment to an additional term. Reappointment is not guaranteed.
Typically, the ISAC meets twice per year (spring and fall). Between these meetings, ISAC subcommittees are expected to work via conference calls and email exchanges. Members of the ISAC and its subcommittees serve without pay. However, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services of the ISAC, members may be reimbursed for travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the government service, as authorized by section 5703 of Title 5, United States Code. Employees of the Federal Government ARE NOT eligible for nomination or appointment to ISAC.
Individuals who are federally registered lobbyists are ineligible to serve on all FACA and non-FACA boards, committees, or councils in an individual capacity. The term “individual capacity” refers to individuals who are appointed to exercise their own individual best judgment on behalf of the government, such as when they are designated Special Government Employees, rather than being appointed to represent a particular interest.
Any interested person or entity may nominate one or more qualified individuals for membership on the ISAC. Self-nominations are also accepted. Persons or entities submitting nomination packages on the behalf of others must confirm that the individual(s) is/are aware of their nomination. Nominations must be postmarked no later than February 18, 2016 to Jamie K. Reaser, Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council Secretariat (OS/NISC), Regular Mail: 1849 C Street NW. (MS 3530), Washington, DC, 20240 and emailed to:
In the notice document published Monday, February 1, 2016 (81 FR 5132), a public meeting of the Bureau of Land Management Nevada Resource Advisory Councils was announced.
The BLM Nevada Resource Advisory Council meeting scheduled for February 10-11, 2016 has been postponed until the outstanding member appointments have been finalized. A new notice will be published when the dates have been decided.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of temporary closures.
Notice is hereby given that a closure is in effect on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lake Havasu Field Office.
The closure will be in effect from 2 p.m., February 5, 2016, through 11:59
Jonathan Azar, Colorado River District Chief Ranger, or Amanda Deeds, Outdoor Recreation Planner, at BLM Lake Havasu Field Office, 2610 Sweetwater Avenue, Lake Havasu City, Arizona 86406, telephone 928-505-1200. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question for the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The closure affects public lands in the Lake Havasu Field Office, under its administration in La Paz County, Arizona. This action is being taken to help ensure public safety, prevent unnecessary environmental degradation, and to protect natural and cultural resources adjacent to the event site during the Best in the Desert (BITD) Racing Association “BlueWater Resort Parker 425” official permitted off-highway vehicle (OHV) events.
The closure order is issued under the authority of 43 CFR part 8340 subpart 8341; 43 CFR part 8360, subpart 8364.1; and 43 CFR part 2932 which allows the BLM to establish closures for the protection of persons; property; and public lands and resources. Violation of any of the terms, conditions, or restrictions contained within this closure order may subject the violator to citation or arrest with a penalty or fine or imprisonment or both as specified by law.
1. Being present on or driving on the designated race course or the adjacent lands described above. All spectators must stay within the designated spectator areas. The spectator areas have protective fencing and barriers. This does not apply to race participants, race officials, nor emergency vehicles authorized or operated by local, State, or Federal government agencies. Emergency medical response shall only be conducted by personnel and vehicles operating under the guidance of the La Paz County Emergency Medical Services and Fire, the Arizona Department of Public Safety, or the BLM.
2. Vehicle parking or stopping in areas affected by the closures, except where such is specifically allowed (designated spectator areas).
3. Camping in the closed area described above, except in the designated spectator areas.
4. Discharge of firearms.
5. Possession or use of any fireworks.
6. Cutting or collecting firewood of any kind, including dead and down wood or other vegetative material.
7. Operating any vehicle including all-terrain vehicles, motorcycles, utility terrain vehicles, golf carts, rhinos, side by sides, and any OHV which are not legally registered for street and highway operations.
8. Operating any vehicle in the area of the closure or on roads within the event area at a speed of more than 35 mph. This does not apply to registered race vehicles during the race, while on the designated race course.
9. Failure to obey any official sign posted by the BLM, La Paz County, or the race promoter.
10. Parking any vehicle in violation of posted restrictions, or in such a manner as to obstruct or impede normal or emergency traffic movement or the parking of other vehicles, create a safety hazard, or endanger any person, property, or feature. Vehicles parked in violation are subject to citation, removal, and/or impoundment at the owner's expense.
11. Failure to obey any person authorized to direct traffic or control access to event area including law enforcement officers, BLM officials, and designated race officials.
12. Failure to observe spectator area quiet hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.
13. Failure to keep campsite or race viewing site free of trash and litter.
14. Allowing any pet or other animal to be unrestrained. All pets must be restrained by a leash of not more than six feet in length.
15. Spectator area site reservations. Denying other visitors or parties from utilizing unoccupied portions of the spectator area.
43 CFR 8364.1.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of Availability.
The National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of a Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (Draft GMP/EIS) for Assateague Island National Seashore, Maryland and Virginia.
The NPS will accept comments on the Draft GMP/EIS for a period of 90 days following publication of the Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of Availability in the
The Draft GMP/EIS will be available for public review and comment online at
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—might be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the National Park Service is preparing a Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (Draft GMP/EIS) for Assateague Island National Seashore (Seashore) to replace the 1982 GMP which does not adequately address the issues facing the Seashore today. Once approved, the GMP will guide and direct management strategies for the future that support the protection of outstanding Mid-Atlantic coastal resources of Assateague Island and its adjacent waters and the natural processes upon which they depend and the provision of high quality, resource-compatible recreational experiences.
The Draft GMP/EIS evaluates the continuation of current management (no action alternative) and three action alternatives with particular emphasis on how the park may respond to climate change and sea level rise and analyzes the environmental consequences of implementing any of the alternatives.
Deborah Darden, Superintendent, Assateague Island National Seashore, 7206 National Seashore Lane, Berlin, MD 21811. Phone: (410) 629-6090.
United States International Trade Commission.
Schedule for 2016 report and opportunity to submit information.
The Commission has prepared and published annual reports in this series under investigation No. 332-345, Recent Trends in U.S. Services Trade, since 1996. The 2016 report, which the Commission plans to publish in September 2016, will provide aggregate data on cross-border trade in services for the period ending in 2014, and transactions by affiliates based outside the country of their parent firm for the period ending in 2013. The report's analysis will focus on financial services (banking, insurance, and securities services). The Commission is inviting interested members of the public to furnish information and views in connection with the 2016 report.
March 30, 2016: Deadline for filing written submissions.
September 30, 2016: Anticipated date for publishing the report.
All Commission offices are located in the United States International Trade Commission Building, 500 E St. SW., Washington, DC. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E St. SW., Washington, DC 20436. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket information system (EDIS) at
Project Leader George Serletis (202-205-3315 or
The initial notice of institution of this investigation was published in the
Any submissions that contain confidential business information (CBI) must also conform with the requirements in section 201.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.6). Section 201.6 of the rules requires that the cover of the document and the individual pages be clearly marked as to whether they are confidential or non-confidential, and that the confidential business information be clearly identified by means of brackets. All written submissions, except for confidential business information, will be made available for inspection by interested parties.
The Commission intends to prepare only a public report in this investigation. The report that the Commission makes available to the public will not contain confidential business information. However, all information, including confidential business information, submitted in this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel solely for cybersecurity purposes. The Commission will not otherwise disclose any confidential business information in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 16) terminating the above-captioned investigation. The Commission has determined to terminate the investigation.
Clint Gerdine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on April 14, 2015, based on an amended complaint filed by Jacobs Vehicle Systems, Inc. of Bloomfield, Connecticut. 80 FR 20012 (Apr. 14, 2015). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos.: 6,474,277; 6,883,492 (“the '492 patent”); 5,829,397 (“the '397
On January 6, 2016, complainant moved for termination of the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint. No party opposed the motion.
On January 7, 2016, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 16) granting complainant's motion and finding that the motion for termination satisfies Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1) and that no “extraordinary circumstances” exist that would preclude granting the motion. No party petitioned for review of the ID.
The Commission has determined not to review the ID and the Commission has terminated the investigation.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-556 and 731-TA-1311 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of truck and bus tires from China, provided for in statistical reporting numbers 4011.20.1015 and 4011.20.5020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and alleged to be subsidized by the Government of China. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by March 14, 2016. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by March 21, 2016.
Nathanael N. Comly, 202-205-3174, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
On July 9, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to Louis Watson, M.D. (Respondent). The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration FW2729804, and the denial of any pending application to renew or modify the registration, on ground that he “do[es] not have authority to practice medicine or handle controlled substances in California, the state in which he is registered with the DEA.” Show Cause Order, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3)).
The Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent is registered with the DEA as a practitioner, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in Schedules II through V, at the registered address of 99 N. San Antonio Ave., #140, Upland, California.
The Show Cause Order further alleged that effective September 12, 2014, the Medical Board of California (MBC) revoked Respondent's California Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate, based on the recommendation of a state Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who had conducted a hearing.
The Show Cause Order also notified Respondent of his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the consequence of failing to elect either option.
On July 15, 2015, DEA Diversion Investigators (DIs) went to a location in Claremont, California which they believed to be Respondent's residence. GX 3. The DI verified that the location was Respondent's address with a neighbor and a pool maintenance employee.
Thereafter, Respondent submitted a request for hearing to the DEA Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ). While Respondent's request was dated August 9, 2015, it was not received by the OALJ until August 24, 2015. GX4.
In his Hearing Request, Respondent listed the name and address of the attorney who was representing him in a state court challenge to the MBC's order, thus suggesting that the attorney was representing him in this matter.
Thereafter, the Government filed a motion requesting that the CALJ deny Respondent's request for a hearing on the ground that it was not timely filed pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(a), which requires the filing of a written request for hearing “within 30 days after the date of receipt of the order to show cause.” GX 6, at 1 (Motion to Preclude Response to the Order to Show Cause). Therein, the Government argued that Respondent's hearing request was filed 40 days after the date of service of the Order to Show Cause, and that Respondent had not shown good cause for the untimely filing. The Government thus argued that Respondent had waived his right to a hearing and that the CALJ should issue an order denying his hearing request and forwarding the file to the Administrator for a final decision.
On the same date, the Government also filed a Motion for Summary Disposition. Therein, the Government requested that the CALJ “issue a Recommended Decision to summarily revoke” Respondent's DEA registration on the ground that he lacks state authority to dispense controlled substances in California, the State in which he hold his registration. GX 7, at 1-2. As support for its motion, the Government submitted copies of the MBC's Decision and the state ALJ's
The CALJ then issued a second Order directing Respondent to respond to the Government's Motion to Preclude by September 22, 2015, the same due date for Respondent's reply, if any, to the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition. GX 8. This order was also sent to Respondent's address at 2058 N. Mills Avenue, #142, Claremont, California.
On September 24, the CALJ issued a Notice of Re-Service. GX 10. Therein, the CALJ explained the all of his prior orders had been sent to Respondent at the return address listed on the envelope the latter had used to mail his Hearing Request to the OALJ. The CALJ further noted that this address was different from the address the Government had used to serve Respondent with the Order to Show Cause and its motions. Thus, to ensure Respondent received sufficient notice of the response deadlines to the Government's motions, the CALJ re-sent his orders to the address of Respondent's residence and extended the time permitted to respond to the Government's motions.
On October 7, 2015, the CALJ, having received no response from Respondent to either motion, granted the Government's motion to terminate the proceedings, finding that Respondent's request for a hearing was not timely filed and that he had neither sought an extension nor offered an explanation for the untimeliness of his hearing request. GX 9, at 3. The CALJ also denied the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition as moot.
Thereafter, the Government submitted its Request for Final Agency Action to this Office. The Government supported its request with various exhibits, including the Proposed Decision of the MBC's ALJ and the MBC's Decision.
Based on the record, I find that Respondent's Hearing Request was untimely and that he has failed to demonstrate good cause to excuse his untimeliness. 21 CFR 1301.43(d). Accordingly, I find that Respondent has waived his right to be heard on the matters of fact and law at issue and issue this Decision and Order based on the record submitted by the Government. I make the following findings of fact.
Respondent is a physician authorized to handle controlled substances in schedules II through V at the registered address of 99 N. San Antonio Ave., #140, Upland, California. GX 2. His registration does not expire until May 31, 2017.
On August 13, 2014, the MBC issued an order adopting the Proposed Decision of a state ALJ and ordered the revocation of Respondent's Physician's and Surgeon's License to practice medicine in the State of California, effective September 12, 2014. GX 7, at 9. Based on a search of the MBC's license verification Web page, Respondent's Physician's and Surgeon's license remains revoked.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823, “upon a finding that the Registrant . . . has had his State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” Moreover, DEA has held repeatedly that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined “the term `practitioner' [to] mean[ ] a . . . physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a physician possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the Act, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices medicine.
Based on the revocation of his California Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate, I find that Respondent currently lacks authority to dispense controlled substances in California, the State in which he holds his DEA registration. Accordingly, I will order that his registration be revoked and that any pending applications be denied.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well as 21 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration FW2729804, issued to Louis Watson, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending application of Louis Watson, M.D., to renew or modify his registration, as well as any other pending application be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective March 7, 2016.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before April 4, 2016.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on December 3, 2015, Pharmacore, Inc., 4180 Mendenhall Oaks Parkway, High Point, North Carolina 27265 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances as active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for clinical trials.
On September 9, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to David W. Bailey, M.D. (Registrant), of Hesperia, California. The Show Cause order proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration FB4421474, and the denial of any applications to renew or modify this registration or for any other registration on two grounds. GX 1, at 1.
First, the Show Cause Order alleged on April 3, 2015, the Medical Board of California (MBC or Board) revoked his state medical license, and that therefore, Registrant is “without authority to handle controlled substances in California, the [S]tate in which [he is] registered with the DEA.
With respect to the latter contention, the Show Cause Order alleged that in the MBC proceeding, the MBC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Registrant admitted to eighteen occasions on which he issued clonazepam prescriptions to his wife but had the drugs dispensed to himself for his “own abuse.”
Finally, the Show Cause Order notified Registrant of his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the consequence for failing to elect either option.
On December 1, the Government filed its Request for Final Agency Action along with with various exhibits. In its Request, the Government states that since the date of service of the Show Cause Order, neither Registrant, “nor anyone representing him[,] has requested a hearing or sent any other correspondence to” the Agency. Request for Final Agency Action, at 9.
Based on the Government's submission, I find that 30 days have now passed since the date of service of the Show Cause Order, and neither Registrant, nor anyone purporting to represent him, has either requested a hearing on the allegations or submitted a written statement in lieu of a hearing.
Registrant is a physician authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner, at the registered address of LaSalle Medical Associates, 16455 Main St., Suite 1, Hesperia, California. GX 2. His registration is not due to expire until July 31, 2016.
On March 6, 2015, the MBC issued an order revoking Registrant's Physician's and Surgeon's License to practice medicine in the State of California, effective April 3, 2015. GX 4. The MBC's revocation was based on the decision of a state ALJ who found, based on clear and convincing evidence, that Registrant: (1) Is alcohol and benzodiazepine dependent, (2) used alcohol and controlled substances in a manner dangerous to himself and others, (3) prescribed a controlled substance to another with the intention of using that substance himself, (4) self-administered a controlled substance that he had prescribed in the name of another, (5) violated the California Medical Practice Act, and 6) engaged in unprofessional conduct.
More specifically, the state ALJ found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Registrant:
The state ALJ also found that Registrant “intentionally created medical records—prescriptions to [his wife] for Klonopin—that were false because he intended to use the Klonopin obtained from the prescription for himself.”
The ALJ then concluded that Registrant:
On March 6, 2015, the MBC adopted the proposed decision, and on April 3, 2015, Registrant's Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate was revoked. GX 4. According to the online records of the MBC, Registrant's license remains revoked.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823, “upon a finding that the Registrant . . . has had his State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” Moreover, DEA has held repeatedly that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined “the term `practitioner' [to] mean[] a . . . physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the Act, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices medicine.
Based on the MBC's revocation of his medical license, I find that Registrant lacks authority to dispense controlled substances in California, the State in which he holds his DEA registration. According, I will order that Registrant's registration be revoked and that any pending applications be denied. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3).
Section 304(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) also provides that a registration to “dispense a controlled substance . . . may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant . . . has committed such acts as would render his registration under section 823 of this title inconsistent with the public interest as determined under such section.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). With respect to a practitioner, the Act requires the consideration of the following factors in making the public interest determination:
(1) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional disciplinary authority.
(2) The applicant's experience in dispensing . . . controlled substances.
(3) The applicant's conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances.
(4) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances.
(5) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.
“These factors are. . . considered in the disjunctive.”
The Government contends that the MBC ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law establish that Registrant violated state and federal laws related to controlled substances.
As for Factor Three, the record contains no evidence that Registrant has been convicted of an offense related to the manufacture, distribution or dispensing of controlled substances.
As for Factor Five, even though the evidence shows that Respondent engaged in the self-abuse of controlled substances, the Government did not set forth any argument that Respondent's conduct is also actionable under this Factor. Thus, I make no findings under this Factor.
I further conclude that the MBC's findings establish that Registrant violated the CSA when he issued fraudulent prescriptions in his wife's name for Klonopin (clonazepam), a schedule IV controlled substance, which he then used and abused.
Accordingly, I find that the evidence establishes Registrant “has committed such acts as would render his registration. . . inconsistent with the public interest.”
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration FB4421474, issued to David W. Bailey, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending application of David W. Bailey, M.D., to renew or modify his registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective March 7, 2016.
On August 21, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to Kenneth H. Bull, M.D. (Respondent), of Albuquerque, New Mexico. GX 1, at 1. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration AB5662552, and the denial of any applications for renewal or modification of the registration, as well as for any other registration, on two grounds: (1) That he lacks authority to handle controlled substances in New Mexico, the State in which he is registered with DEA, and (2) his “registration would be inconsistent with the public interest.”
The Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent is registered as a practitioner in schedules IIN, IIIN, IV and V, at the registered address of 3500 Comanche Blvd., Building Suite 6, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
As grounds for the proposed action, the Show Cause Order alleged that effective June 30, 2014, the New Mexico Medical Board (Board) issued a Decision and Order which revoked Respondent's medical license, thus rendering him without authority “to order, dispense, prescribe or administer any controlled substances” in New Mexico, the State in which he holds his registration.
As further ground, the Government alleged that Respondent's “registration is inconsistent with the public interest because [he] did not comply with applicable Federal law related to controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) and 823(f)(4).”
The Show Cause Order was served on Respondent by registered mail sent to his registered location; according to the Government, the return receipt card showed that the mailing was received on September 16, 2015. Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), at 2; GX 7. Thereafter, on September 22, 2015, Respondent, through his attorney, filed a written response to the Show Cause Order. GX 8.
Therein, Respondent expressly waived his right to a hearing but submitted a written statement for my consideration. GX 8, at 1 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43(c)). Thereafter, the Government submitted a Request for Final Agency Action with supporting documents; in its submission, the Government also included Respondent's written statement.
Based on Respondent's submission, I find that he has waived his right to a hearing on the allegations of the Show Cause Order. 21 CFR 1301.43(c). However, I will consider Respondent's statement along with the evidence submitted by the Government in this matter. I make the following findings of fact.
Respondent, who is a psychiatrist in the State of New Mexico, is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration AB5662552, pursuant to which he is currently authorized to dispense controlled substances in Schedules IIN, IIIN, IV and V; his registration does not expire until July 31, 2017. GX 2, at 1. Respondent was previously authorized to dispense controlled substances in Schedules II through V, as well to dispense buprenorphine as a DATA-Waiver physician.
On June 30, 2014, the New Mexico Medical Board issued a Decision and Order which adopted nearly all of the findings of a state Hearing Officer. GX 4, at 1. The Board suspended Respondent's medical license “effectively immediately,” based upon “the deficiencies noted in” a report by the Center for Personalized Education for Physicians (CPEP), which had assessed his clinical skills, as well as the Hearing Officer's “finding of manifest incompetence.”
The Government states that Respondent's medical license remains suspended, and Respondent does not deny this in his written statement. GX 8, at 2. Moreover, a search of the online records of the New Mexico Medical Board shows that Respondent's medical license remains suspended.
Respondent's written statement summarizes his academic and professional career, noting that he has been practicing for more than 40 years.
Respondent further states that he “strongly disagrees with the Board's findings and conclusions, but has accepted them.”
Respondent then engages in a collateral attack on the Board's Order. He argues:
[T]he Medical Board's prosecution rested its case entirely on unsworn hearsay evidence in the form of a report issued by a Colorado physician assessment organization called the . . . CPEP. The report was based on approximately three hours of interview time with [him] done by unidentified physician consultants who conducted a review of a tiny fraction of his total patient records (24 records out of hundreds of cases). [Respondent] also participated in two 30 minute simulated patient intake interviews with actors playing the patients. The New Mexico Medical Board based its suspension on its conclusion [that he] required a residency-type program to continue practicing psychiatry, a claim [his] expert witness disagreed with strongly.
Respondent then argues that “there is no claim [he] engaged in any sort of financial impropriety, diversion of medications, boundary issues, or harmed a patient in any manner.” Stating that he “intends to ask the Board to modify its order in the near future to allow him to resume practice,” Respondent asks that I delay consideration of the matter “until this occurs.”
In its Request for Final Agency Action, the Government asserts two grounds to revoke Respondent's registration. RFAA, at 4. With respect to the public interest ground, the Government contends that, “in the present proceeding, [I] can give
The Government does not explain, however, why the factual findings and legal conclusions of the prior Agency Decision and Order now support the revocation of Respondent's registration on public interest grounds. Notably, in that proceeding, the prior Administrator found that Respondent had accepted responsibility and demonstrated that he would not engage in future misconduct with respect to the misconduct that “was properly at issue in the proceeding.” 78 FR at 62675. Moreover, the prior Administrator did not find the misconduct that was proven on the record of the proceeding to be sufficiently egregious to warrant revocation.
Presumably, Respondent served his suspension without incident, and notably, the Government makes no allegation in this proceeding that Respondent has, since the first proceeding, engaged in any further misconduct related to controlled substances.
There is, however, no dispute that Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled substances in New Mexico, the State where he is currently registered, and pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823, “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” Moreover, DEA has repeatedly held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined “the term `practitioner' [to] mean[ ] a . . . physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the Act, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices medicine.
Thus, the Agency has held that revocation is warranted even where, as here, the state board has suspended (as opposed to revoked) a practitioner's dispensing authority and that authority may be restored at some point in the future through further proceedings.
Respondent further argues that I should consider that the Medical Board's case “rested entirely on unsworn hearsay evidence in the form of” the CPEP Report and that his expert witness “disagreed with” the Board's conclusion that he should undergo a “residency-type program to continue practicing. GX 8, at 2. This argument is simply a collateral attack on the State Board proceeding. The Agency has held, however, “that a registrant cannot collaterally attack the result of a state criminal or administrative proceeding in a proceeding under section 304, 21 U.S.C. 824, of the CSA.”
Because it is undisputed that Respondent's New Mexico medical license remains suspended, I find that he no longer has authority under the laws of New Mexico, the State in which he is registered, to dispense controlled substances. Therefore, he is not entitled to maintain his DEA registration.
Finally, while Respondent asserts that New Mexico is a medically underserved area, in the case of individual practitioners, DEA has held that community impact evidence is irrelevant in the public interest determination as it is in a proceeding based on a loss of state authority.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration AB5662552, issued to Kenneth Harold Bull, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any application of Kenneth Harold Bull, M.D., to renew or modify his registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective immediately.
On January 28, 2016, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Partial Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi in the lawsuit entitled
The United States and the State of Mississippi filed this lawsuit under the Clean Water Act and the Mississippi Air and Water Pollution Control Law. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties for violations in connection with the City's sanitary sewer system. The City has grouped mini-systems within the sewer system into three different groups and prioritized Sewer Group 1 and Sewer Group 2 for sewer assessment and rehabilitation work. The Partial Consent Decree provides for the City to conduct early action projects; capacity, management, operations, and maintenance program; and assessment and rehabilitation of Sewer Groups 1 and 2. The partial settlement will not resolve the claims for civil penalties or for injunctive relief related to Sewer Group 3, as those will be the topics of future negotiation among the parties.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Partial Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Partial Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $60.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the appendices, the cost is $14.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 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 April 4, 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 Jennifer Truman or Rachel Morgan, Statisticians, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (email:
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:
(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.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Announcement of FACOSH meeting.
The Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH) will meet Thursday, February 18, 2016, in Washington, DC.
OSHA will post comments, requests to speak, and speaker presentations, including any personal information provided, without change in the FACOSH public docket and submissions may be available online at
FACOSH will meet February 18, 2016, in Washington, DC. The meeting is open to the public. Some FACOSH members may attend the meeting electronically.
The tentative agenda for the FACOSH meeting includes:
• The Presidential Initiatives focusing federal agencies' efforts on improving workplace safety and health and return-to-work outcomes for federal workers who sustain injuries or illnesses in the performance of duty;
• Status of the 2014 Secretary of Labor's Report to the President on Federal Department and Agency Occupational Safety and Health Program Activity (Report), and the request for information to federal departments and agencies for the 2015 Report;
• Construction safety and health stand-down;
• Draft Updated OSHA Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines; and
• Updates from FACOSH subcommittees.
FACOSH is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 7902; section 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 668); and Executive Order 11612, as amended, to advise the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) on all matters relating to the occupational safety and health of federal employees. This includes providing advice on how to reduce and keep to a minimum the number of injuries and illnesses in the federal workforce, and how to encourage each federal Executive Branch department and agency to establish and maintain effective occupational safety and health programs. FACOSH operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and its implementing regulations (41 CFR part 102-3).
OSHA transcribes and prepares detailed minutes of FACOSH meetings. The Agency posts meeting transcripts and minutes plus other materials presented at the FACOSH meeting in the public record of the meeting.
Because of security-related procedures, receipt of submissions by regular mail may result in a significant delay. For information about security procedures concerning submissions by hand, express delivery, and messenger/courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office (see
• The amount of time you request to speak;
• The interest you represent (
• A brief outline of your presentation.
PowerPoint speaker presentations and other electronic materials must be compatible with Microsoft Office 2010 formats. The FACOSH chair may grant requests to address FACOSH at his discretion, and as time and circumstances permit.
To read or download documents in the public record, go to Docket No. OSHA-2016-0002 at
Information about using
Electronic copies of this
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7902; 5 U.S.C. App. 2; 29 U.S.C. 668; Executive Order 12196 (45 CFR 12629 (2/27/1980)), as amended; 41 CFR part 102-3; and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for nominations to serve on FACOSH.
The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health invites interested individuals to submit nominations for membership on FACOSH.
You must submit (postmark, send, transmit, deliver) nominations by April 29, 2016.
You may submit nominations and supporting materials using one of the following methods:
OSHA will post submissions, including any personal information provided, without change in the FACOSH docket and they may be available online at
The Assistant Secretary of OSHA invites interested individuals to submit nominations for membership on FACOSH.
• Three labor representatives; and
• Three management representatives.
FACOSH members serve at the pleasure of the Secretary and may be appointed to successive terms. FACOSH meets at least twice a year.
The Department of Labor is committed to equal opportunity in the
1. The nominee's name, contact information and current employment;
2. The nominee's resume or curriculum vitae, including prior membership on FACOSH and other relevant organizations, associations and committees;
3. Category of membership (management or labor) that the nominee is qualified to represent;
4. A summary of the nominee's background, experience and qualifications that address the nominee's suitability to serve on FACOSH;
5. Articles or other documents the nominee has authored that indicate the nominee's knowledge, experience and expertise in occupational safety and health, particularly as it pertains to the federal workforce; and
6. A statement that the nominee is aware of the nomination, is willing to regularly attend and participate in FACOSH meetings, and has no apparent conflicts of interest that would preclude membership on FACOSH.
Information received through the nomination process, along with other relevant sources of information, will assist the Secretary in making appointments to FACOSH. In selecting FACOSH members, the Secretary will consider individuals nominated in response to this
OSHA will consider any nomination submitted in response to this notice for the vacancies that occur on January 1, 2017. In addition, OSHA will consider the nominations for any vacancy that may occur during 2016 and for member positions that open January 1, 2017, provided the information the nominee submitted continues to remain current and accurate. OSHA believes that `rolling over' nominations for future consideration will make it easier for interested individuals to be considered for membership on FACOSH. This process also will provide OSHA with a broad base of nominations for ensuring that FACOSH membership is fairly balanced as the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.2, Section (5)(b)(2); 41 CFR 102-3.30(c)). OSHA will continue to request nominations as vacancies occur, but nominees whose information is current and accurate will not need to resubmit a nomination.
Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of nominations. For information about security procedures concerning the submission of materials by mail, hand, express delivery, messenger or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office (see
All submissions in response to this
Electronic copies of this
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7902; 5 U.S.C. App. 2; 29 U.S.C. 668; Executive Order 12196 (45 CFR 12629 (2/27/1980)), as amended; 41 CFR part 102-3; and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Heliophysics Subcommittee of the
Tuesday, March 1, 2016, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., and Wednesday, March 2, 2016, 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, Room 3H42, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546.
Ms. Ann Delo, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0750, fax (202) 358-2779, or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. This meeting will also be available telephonically and by WebEx. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number 1-800-369-3367, passcode 8618491, on both days, to participate in this meeting by telephone. The WebEx link is
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters. Due to the Real ID Act, Public Law 109-13, any attendees with drivers licenses issued from non-compliant states/territories must present a second form of ID. [Federal employee badge; passport; active military identification card; enhanced driver's license; U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card; Native American tribal document; school identification accompanied by an item from LIST C (documents that establish employment authorization) from the “List of the Acceptable Documents” on Form I-9]. Non-compliant states/territories are: American Samoa, Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and New York. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 working days prior to the meeting: full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee; and home address to Ann Delo via email at
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
All comments should be submitted within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 7th Street NW., Washington DC, 20543. Attention: Desk Officer for NASA.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Frances Teel, NASA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., JF0000, Washington, DC 20546,
To ensure accurate reporting of Government-owned, contractor-held property on financial statements and to provide information necessary for effective property management in accordance with FAR Part 45, NASA collects information on an annual basis. The information is collected to validate official property records maintained by NASA contractors. The information is submitted via the NASA Form 1018, at the end of each fiscal year. NASA reimburses its contractors for the cost to prepare and submit the annual reports.
This 30-day FRN reflects a change in the information published in the 60-day FRN. Specifically, it reflects an increase in the estimated number of respondents as well as an increase in the estimate number of burden hours. The estimated annual cost to the government is also reflected.
Electronic.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards. The review and evaluation may also include assessment of the progress of awarded proposals. The majority of these meetings will take place at NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230.
These meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to review the agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
These closed proposal review meetings will not be announced on an individual basis in the
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, February 9, 2016
NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594.
The one item is open to the public.
Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.
Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle Hall at (202) 314-6305 or by email at
The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at
Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at
Candi Bing at (202) 314-6403 or by email at
Keith Holloway at (202) 314-6100 or by email at
National Women's Business Council.
Notice of open public meeting.
The Public Meeting will be held on Monday, March 7th, 2016 from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST.
The meeting will be held in Washington, DC. Location details will be provided upon RSVP, as will information about teleconferencing and livestream options.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announces the meeting of the National Women's Business Council. The National Women's Business Council is tasked with providing policy recommendations on issues of importance and impact to women entrepreneurs to the SBA, Congress, and the White House.
This meeting is the 2nd quarterly meeting of the Council for Fiscal Year 2016. The program will include remarks from the Council Chair, Carla Harris; an update from each of the NWBC committees; and a discussion of the Council's FY2016 agenda. The discussion will focus on the policy recommendations that the Council will be making to the SBA, Congress, and the White House for improving the business climate for women entrepreneurs, as well as the new research portfolio. Time will be reserved at the end for audience participants to address Council Members directly with questions, comments, or feedback. Additional speakers will be promoted upon confirmation.
The meeting is open to the public however advance notice of attendance is requested. To RSVP and confirm attendance, the general public should email
For more information, please visit the National Women's Business Council Web site at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Interim staff guidance; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing the final License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance (LR-ISG), LR-ISG-2015-01, “Changes to Buried and Underground Piping and
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0159 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
William Holston, telephone: 301-415-8573; email:
The NRC issues LR-ISGs to communicate insights and lessons learned and to address emergent issues not covered in license renewal guidance documents, such as the GALL Report, NUREG-1801, Rev. 2 (Dec. 2010), and the Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (SRP-LR), NUREG-1800, Rev. 2 (Dec. 2010), which are available under ADAMS Accession Nos. ML103490041 and ML103490036, respectively. In this way, the NRC staff and stakeholders may use the guidance in an LR-ISG document before it is incorporated into a formal license renewal guidance document revision. The NRC staff issues LR-ISGs in accordance with the LR-ISG Process, Revision 2 (ADAMS Accession No. ML100920158), for which a notice of availability was published in the
The NRC staff has developed LR-ISG-2015-01 to address new recommendations related to buried and underground piping and tanks within the scope of part 54 of title 10 of the
On June 29, 2015, (80 FR 37028) the NRC requested public comments on draft LR-ISG-2015-01 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15125A377).
The NRC received comments from the Nuclear Energy Institute by letter dated August 6, 2015, (ADAMS Accession No. ML15225A076), Hank Kleinfelder by letter dated August 6, 2015, (ADAMS Accession No. ML15225A077), Anonymous by letter dated August 7, 2015, (ADAMS Accession No. ML15225A078), Kevin Anstee for Entergy—River Bend Station by letter dated August 10, 2015, (ADAMS Accession No. ML15244A392), and Steven Daily by letter dated August 10, 2015, (ADAMS Accession No. ML15244A391). No other comments were submitted. The NRC considered these comments in developing the final LR-ISG. Detailed responses to the comments can be found in Appendix D of the final LR-ISG.
The final LR-ISG-2015-01 is approved for NRC staff and stakeholder use and will be incorporated into the NRC's next formal license renewal guidance document revision.
This ISG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
Issuance of this final LR-ISG does not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) and is not otherwise inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” As discussed in the “Backfitting and Issue Finality” section of the final LR-ISG-2015-01, the LR-ISG is directed to holders of operating licenses or combined licenses who are currently in the license renewal process. The LR-ISG is not directed to holders of operating licenses or combined licenses until they apply for license renewal. The LR-ISG is also not directed to licensees who already hold renewed operating or combined licenses. However, the NRC could also use the LR-ISG in evaluating voluntary, licensee-initiated changes to previously approved aging management programs.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Notice of Meeting.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) on March 17-18, 2016. A sample of agenda items to be discussed during the public session includes: A discussion on the reporting of medical events for various modalities; an update on medical-related events; a discussion on the training and experience requirements for authorized users of alpha and beta emitters; an update on the licensing guidance for yttrium-90 microsphere brachytherapy; and a discussion on the licensing guidance for the Leksell Gamma Knife® Icon
Philip O. Alderson, M.D., will chair the meeting. Dr. Alderson will conduct the meeting in a manner that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. The following procedures apply to public participation in the meeting:
1. Persons who wish to provide a written statement should submit an electronic copy to Ms. Holiday at the contact information listed above. All submittals must be received by March 15, 2016, and must pertain to the topic on the agenda for the meeting.
2. Questions and comments from members of the public will be permitted during the meeting, at the discretion of the Chairman.
3. The draft transcript and meeting summary will be available on ACMUI's Web site
4. Persons who require special services, such as those for the hearing impaired, should notify Ms. Holiday of their planned attendance.
This meeting will be held in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (primarily Section 161a); the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App); and the Commission's regulations in Title 10
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering amending the NRC's Source Materials License No. STB-401 to allow the option to perform direct dose assessment of residual radioactivity in addition to using derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs) to demonstrate compliance with the license termination criteria at the Mallinckrodt site in St. Louis, Missouri. The NRC staff is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) associated with the proposed action.
The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on February 4, 2016.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0139 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Karen Pinkston, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3650; email:
The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to the NRC's Source Materials License No. STB-401, issued to Mallinckrodt, for operation of their facility located in St. Louis, Missouri. This amendment allows Mallinckrodt the option to perform direct dose assessment of residual radioactivity in addition to using derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs) to demonstrate compliance with the license termination criteria at the Mallinckrodt site in St. Louis, Missouri. Consistent with part 51 of title 10 of the
The NRC received, by letter dated February 12, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15063A404), an application from Mallinckrodt LLC to amend the NRC's Source Materials License No. STB-401. The licensee requests the option to perform direct dose assessment of residual radioactivity in addition to using DCGLs to demonstrate compliance with the license termination criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402 at the Mallinckrodt site in St. Louis, Missouri. The license currently states that the Decommissioning of the Columbium-Tantalum (C-T) process area building slabs and foundations, paved surfaces, and all subsurface materials, shall be done in accordance with the Mallinckrodt C-T Decommissioning Project, C-T Phase II Decommissioning Plan (DP), Revision 2, submitted to NRC on October 14, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML083150652), and revisions submitted on June 3, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML101620140). A Notice of Availability of an EA and FONSI was published for the NRC's approval of the DP in the
On June 4, 2015, the NRC published in the
The proposed action is approval of a requested license amendment. Mallinckrodt LLC requests the option to perform direct dose assessment of residual radioactivity in addition to using DCGLs to demonstrate compliance with the license termination criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402 at the Mallinckrodt site in St. Louis, Missouri. The NRC's guidance in NUREG-1757, Vol. 2, allows for the use of either the DCGL or dose assessment approach in demonstrating compliance with the license termination criteria. In its amendment request, Mallinckrodt proposed to evaluate two different scenarios in its dose assessment: an industrial worker who works on the site and an intruder into the subsurface material. In the first scenario, the residual radioactivity that is located at depth is assumed to be covered with non-contaminated material. In the second scenario, the potential dose due to an intrusion into the material because of pipeline installation or foundation construction is evaluated.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated February 12, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15063A404).
Mallinckrodt is not permitted to use the dose assessment approach without a license amendment authorizing that approach. During site remediation, Mallinckrodt identified areas of elevated contamination that are located at depth in inaccessible areas. The DCGL values developed in Mallinckrodt's DP were based on the conservative assumption that the residual radioactivity was located at the surface. The use of the dose assessment approach instead of the DCGL approach allows Mallinckrodt to evaluate the actual configuration of residual radioactivity in a more realistic manner; and thus, to avoid conservative remediation activities not needed to protect health and safety. The removal of the inaccessible residual radioactivity to levels that are below the previously approved DCGL values would require extraordinary measures such as undermining building foundations and structures or installing sheet pilings for soil stability.
The proposed action is administrative and would have no direct environmental impacts, but it would authorize Mallinckrodt to adopt a dose assessment approach to demonstrate compliance with the license termination criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402. The EA for Mallinckrodt's Phase II DP described the potential environmental effects from the remediation of radiologically contaminated soil and pavement of the site.
The maximum total radiological dose from both the proposed action and the previously approved DCGL values will be less than the 25 mrem/yr criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402. However, the configuration of the residual radioactivity allowed to remain at the site would likely be different based on the dose assessment approach than would be allowed based on the previously approved DCGL values. The DCGL values resulted in a lower total allowed level of residual radioactivity, while the dose assessment approach will result in a higher allowed level located at depth, reflecting the fact that not all contamination is at the surface, which is assumed in the DCGL values. The projected dose from residual radioactivity at the Mallinckrodt site is through the direct radiation, soil ingestion, and inhalation of dust pathways. The projected dose from the in situ residual radioactivity located at depth under clean cover at the Mallinckrodt site is therefore much smaller than the dose from comparable residual radioactivity located at the surface. Mallinckrodt's evaluation of the potential dose due to an intrusion demonstrates that the dose will remain less than 25 mrem/yr even if the material is uncovered. The difficulty of additional remediation of residual radioactivity located in inaccessible areas makes such remediation unreasonable, therefore the ALARA requirement in 10 CFR 20.1402 is met for the dose assessment approach despite the reduction in required remediation activities.
There are no cumulative effects from the proposed action and previously approved actions at the site because the total dose from residual radioactivity at the site will continue to be less than the 25 mrem/yr criteria and there will be no additional environmental impacts beyond those described in the EA associated with the Phase II DP.
The alternative to the proposed action is denial of the requested license amendment. If Mallinckrodt is not authorized to use the dose assessment approach to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402, then Mallinckrodt would have to remove the inaccessible residual radioactivity to levels that are below the approved DCGL values in order to terminate their license. The removal of this material would require extraordinary measures to remove without damaging the buildings that are over this material. The additional removal also creates a potential for radiological environmental impacts. Radiological environmental impacts that could result from remediation activities include exposure, inhalation, and ingestion hazards to workers and the public. These hazards could occur during excavation and loading of radioactively contaminated material. Air quality and noise impacts could also result from these remediation activities. The potential impacts from any additional remediation activities are described in the EA for the DP, specifically, Phase II remediation activities.
The proposed action does not affect any resource implications discussed in previous environmental reviews.
In accordance with its stated policy, on September 15, 2015, the staff consulted with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. No comments were received. The NRC did not consult with either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the State Historic Preservation Office because the proposed action, approval of the requested license amendment, can only result in a reduction of previously considered impacts to these resource areas. In fact, the need for the proposed action is to allow Mallinckrodt to avoid previously authorized activities that would be required in the absence of the proposed action.
Consistent with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC conducted the EA for the proposed action described in Section II of this
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Notice.
This notice identifies Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency that were established or revoked from October 1, 2015, to October 31, 2015.
Senior Executive Resources Services, Senior Executive Services and Performance Management, Employee Services, 202-606-2246.
In accordance with 5 CFR 213.103, Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities available for use by all agencies are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency are not codified in the CFR, but the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) publishes a notice of agency-specific authorities established or revoked each month in the
No Schedule A Authorities to report during October 2015.
No Schedule B Authorities to report during October 2015.
The following Schedule C appointing authorities were approved during October 2015.
The following Schedule C appointing authorities were revoked during October 2015.
5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
ICC proposes a revision to the ICC Risk Management Framework to formalize the reporting line of the ICC Chief Risk Officer. This revision does not require any change to the ICC Clearing Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
ICC proposes revising its Risk Management Framework to address a CFTC recommendation regarding ICC's governance arrangements by including language regarding the ability of risk management personnel to access the Board. Specifically, ICC added language regarding the reporting line of ICC's Chief Risk Officer, namely that the ICC Chief Risk Officer reports to the Chairperson of the ICC Risk Committee, who is also a non-executive manager on the Board.
Section 17(A)(b)(3)(F) of the Act
ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. ICC is formalizing the reporting line of its Chief Risk Officer and not making any substantive changes to its overall risk management framework. Therefore, ICC does not believe the proposed rule changes impose any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICC.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
ICC has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. According to ICC, the proposed rule change does not present any novel or controversial issues. Rather, ICC is merely formalizing its policy of allowing the ICC's Chief Risk Officer to report to the Chairperson of the ICC Risk Committee. Accordingly, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2016-001 and should be submitted on or before February 25, 2016.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act and for an order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end management investment companies to issue multiple classes of limited liability company interests (“Interests”) and to impose asset-based service and/or distribution and contingent deferred sales loads (“CDSCs”).
Susa Registered Fund, LLC (the “Fund”) and Susa Fund Management LLP (the “Adviser”) (together, the “Applicants”).
The application was filed on July 23, 2015 and amended on October 13, 2015.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail.
Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on February 23, 2016, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, c/o Kenneth S. Gerstein, Esq., Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, 919 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022.
Vanessa M. Meeks, Senior Counsel, or Melissa R. Harke, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Chief Counsel's Office, Division of Investment Management).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Fund is a continuously offered non-diversified closed-end management investment company registered under the Act and organized as a Delaware limited liability company.
2. The Adviser, a limited liability partnership incorporated under the laws of England and Wales, is registered with the Commission as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”).
3. The Fund will continuously offer Interests in private placements in reliance on the provisions of Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”).
4. The Fund currently issues a single class of Interests (“Initial Class”) at net asset value. The Fund proposes to offer multiple classes of Interests at net asset value that may (but would not necessarily) be subject to a front-end sales load, an asset-based service fee and/or distribution fee, and/or an Early Repurchase Fee (defined below), in each case as set forth in the Fund's confidential private placement
5. In order to provide a limited degree of liquidity to shareholders, the Fund may from time to time offer to repurchase Interests at their then current net asset value pursuant to rule 13e 4 under the 1934 Act pursuant to written tenders by persons owning Interests in the Fund (“Members”).
6. The Applicants request that the order also apply to any other continuously-offered registered closed-end management investment company existing now or in the future, for which the Adviser or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control (as the term “control” is defined in section 2(a)(9) of the Act) with the Adviser acts as investment adviser, and which either (a) provides liquidity to investors by means of issuer tender offers made in compliance with rule 13e-4 under the 1934 Act or (b) operates as an “interval fund” pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the Act.
7. Applicants represent that any asset-based service and distribution fees will comply with the provisions of rule 2830(d) of the Conduct Rules of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD Conduct Rule 2830”).
8. The Fund will allocate all expenses incurred by it among the various classes of Interests based on the net assets of the Fund attributable to each class, except that the net asset value and expenses of each class will reflect distribution fees, service fees, and any other incremental expenses of that class. Expenses of the Fund allocated to a particular class of the Fund's Interests will be borne on a pro rata basis by each outstanding Interest of that class. The Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 as if it were an open-end investment company.
9. Although the Fund does not presently anticipate imposing CDSCs, the Applicants would only do so in compliance with the provisions of rule 6c-10 of the Act, as if that rule applied to closed-end management investment companies. With respect to any waiver of, scheduled variation in, or elimination of the CDSC, the Fund will comply with rule 22d-1 under the Act as if the Fund were an open-end investment company.
1. Section 18(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that a registered closed-end investment company may not issue or sell any senior security if, immediately thereafter, the company has outstanding more than one class of senior security. Applicants state that the creation of multiple classes of Interests of the Fund may be prohibited by section 18(c) of the Act.
2. Section 18(i) of the Act provides that each share of stock issued by a registered management investment company will be a voting stock and have equal voting rights with every other outstanding voting stock. Applicants state that permitting multiple classes of Interests of the Fund may violate section 18(i) of the Act because each class would be entitled to exclusive voting rights with respect to matters solely related to that class.
3. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that, the Commission may, by order upon application, conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision or provisions of the Act or from any rule or regulation under the Act, if and to the extent that the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants request exemptive relief under section 6(c) from sections 18(c) and 18(i) to permit the Funds to issue multiple classes of Interests.
4. Applicants also believe that the proposed allocation of expenses and voting rights among multiple classes is equitable and will not discriminate against any group or class of Members. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangements would permit the Fund to facilitate the distribution of Interests and provide a broader choice of investment options. Applicants believe that the proposed closed-end investment company multiple class structure does not raise the concerns underlying section 18 of the Act to any greater degree than open-end investment companies' multiple class structures. Applicants state that the Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 as if it were an open-end investment company.
1. Applicants believe that the requested relief meets the standards of section 6(c) of the Act. Rule 6c-10 under the Act permits open-end investment companies to impose CDSCs, subject to certain conditions. Applicants state that although the Fund does not currently intend to impose CDSCs, the Fund will only impose a CDSC in compliance with rule 6c-10 as if that rule applied to closed-end
1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company or an affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from participating in or effecting any transaction in connection with any joint enterprise or joint arrangement in which the investment company participates unless the Commission issues an order permitting the transaction. In reviewing applications submitted under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the participation of the investment company in a joint enterprise or joint arrangement is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act, and the extent to which the participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
2. Rule 17d-3 under the Act provides an exemption from section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 to permit open-end investment companies to enter into distribution arrangements pursuant to rule 12b-1 under the Act. Applicants request an order under section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit the Fund to impose asset-based service and/or distribution fees. Applicants have agreed to comply with rules 12b-1 and 17d-3 as if those rules applied to closed-end investment companies.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following condition:
Applicants will comply with the provisions of rules 6c-10, 12b-1, 17d-3, 18f-3, and 22d-1 under the Act, as amended from time to time or replaced, as if those rules applied to closed-end management investment companies, and will comply with NASD Conduct Rule 2830, as amended from time to time, as if that rule applied to all closed-end management investment companies.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On September 29, 2014, ISE Mercury, LLC (“ISE Mercury” or “Exchange”) submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) an Application for Registration as a National Securities Exchange (“Form 1 Application”)
Under Sections 6(b) and 19(a) of the Act,
As discussed in greater detail below, the Commission finds, after consideration of the comment letter and the Exchange's response thereto, that ISE Mercury's application for exchange registration meets the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. Further, the Commission finds that the proposed rules of ISE Mercury are consistent with Section 6 of the Act in that, among other things, they assure a fair representation of the Exchange's members in the selection of its directors and administration of its affairs and provide that one or more directors will be representative of issuers and investors and not be associated with a member of the exchange, or with a broker or dealer;
ISE Mercury is structured as a Delaware limited liability company (“LLC”) and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of International Securities Exchange Holdings, Inc. (“ISE Holdings”).
The board of directors of ISE Mercury (“ISE Mercury Board” or “Board”) will be its governing body and will possess all of the powers necessary for the management of its business and affairs, including governance of ISE Mercury as a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”).
As part of the process to elect members of the Board, the Nominating Committee will nominate the proposed Industry Directors and the Corporate Governance Committee
The Commission believes that the requirements in the ISE Mercury Constitution—that at least 30% of the directors be Industry Directors and the means by which they will be chosen by ISE Mercury members
After ISE Mercury is granted registration by the Commission, but prior to commencing operations, ISE Holdings, as the sole shareholder of ISE Mercury,
These interim Industry Directors will serve until the first initial ISE Mercury Board is elected pursuant to the full nomination, petition, and voting process set forth in the ISE Mercury Constitution as described above.
The Commission believes that the process for electing the Interim ISE Mercury Board, as proposed, is consistent with the requirements of the Act, including that the rules of the exchange assure fair representation of the exchange's members in the selection of its directors and administration of its affairs.
The Interim ISE Mercury Board will be filled by current ISE and ISE Gemini Board members (which currently include Industry Directors who were elected by current ISE and ISE Gemini members) until the first annual meeting of ISE Mercury.
ISE Mercury will have a number of Board committees,
ISE Mercury also will have a Nominating Committee, which will be a committee of ISE Mercury and not a committee of the Board.
The Commission believes that ISE Mercury's proposed committees, which are similar to committees maintained by other national securities exchanges,
When ISE Mercury commences operations as a national securities exchange, it will have all the attendant regulatory obligations under the Act. In particular, ISE Mercury will be responsible for the operation and regulation of its trading system and the regulation of its members. Certain provisions in the ISE Mercury's and ISE Holdings' governance documents are designed to facilitate the ability of ISE Mercury and the Commission to fulfill their regulatory and oversight obligations under the Act. The discussion below summarizes some of these key provisions.
As noted above in Section II.A, ISE Mercury is a Delaware LLC and a wholly-owned subsidiary of ISE Holdings.
Specifically, ISE Holdings' governing documents prohibit any ISE Mercury member (alone or together with its Related Persons
Consistent with the governance structure of other exchanges, however, ISE Holdings Board may waive the 40% ownership limitation and the 20% voting restriction for persons other than ISE Mercury members, subject to certain specified conditions, but such waiver will not be effective unless approved by the Commission. Specifically, The ISE Holdings Certificate allows the ISE Holdings Board to waive the ISE Holdings ownership and voting limits pursuant to an amendment to the ISE Holdings Bylaws, provided that the ISE Holdings Board makes certain determinations.
Article XI of the ISE Holdings Bylaws waives the ISE Holdings ownership and voting limits to allow the Upstream Owners to own and vote all of the common stock of ISE Holdings. Article XI, Section 11.1(b) states that, in waiving the ISE Holdings ownership and voting limits to permit the Upstream Owners to own and vote the capital stock of ISE Holdings, the ISE Holdings Board has determined, with respect to each Upstream Owner, that: (i) Such waiver will not impair the ability of ISE Holdings and each “Controlled National Securities Exchange” (
The ISE Mercury LLC Agreement and ISE Mercury Constitution do not include change of control provisions that are similar to those in the ISE Holdings Certificate and ISE Holdings Bylaws. However, the ISE Mercury LLC Agreement and the ISE Mercury Constitution explicitly provide that ISE Holdings is the Sole LLC Member of ISE Mercury.
To facilitate compliance with the ISE Holdings ownership and voting limits, the Upstream Owners have committed to take reasonable steps necessary to cause ISE Holdings to be in compliance with the ISE Holdings ownership and voting limits. These commitments are contained in the governing documents for U.S. Exchange Holdings
In connection with the Eurex Acquisition, ISE implemented the ISE Trust pursuant to a Trust Agreement (“2007 Trust Agreement”) among ISE Holdings, U.S. Exchange Holdings, trustees (“Trustees”), and a Delaware trustee, which agreement has been subsequently amended to take into account subsequent acquisitions, including the current transaction.
Although ISE Holdings is not independently responsible for regulation of ISE Mercury, its activities with respect to the operation of ISE Mercury must be consistent with, and must not interfere with, the self-regulatory obligations of ISE Mercury.
The Commission believes that ISE Mercury's and ISE Holdings' proposed ownership and voting limitation provisions, together with the provisions in U.S. Exchange Holdings' governing documents, the ISE Mercury Resolutions, and the ISE Trust
Although ISE Holdings itself will not itself carry out regulatory functions, its activities with respect to the operation of ISE Mercury must be consistent with, and not interfere with, the self-regulatory obligations of ISE Mercury.
• The directors, officers, and employees of ISE Holdings must give due regard to the preservation of the independence of the self-regulatory function of ISE Mercury and must not take actions that would interfere with the effectuation of decisions by the ISE Mercury Board relating to ISE Mercury's regulatory functions (including disciplinary matters) or that would adversely affect the ability of ISE Mercury to carry out its responsibilities under the Act.
• ISE Holdings must comply with federal securities laws and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, and must cooperate with ISE Mercury and the Commission pursuant to, and to the extent of, their respective regulatory authority. In addition, ISE Holdings' officers, directors, and employees must comply with federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder and agree to cooperate with ISE Mercury and the Commission pursuant to their respective regulatory authority.
• ISE Holdings, and its officers, directors, employees, and agents are deemed to irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal courts, the Commission, and ISE Mercury, for purposes of any suit, action, or proceeding pursuant to U.S. federal securities laws, and the rules and regulations thereunder, arising out of, or relating to, ISE Mercury's activities.
• All books and records of ISE Mercury containing confidential information pertaining to the self-regulatory function of ISE Mercury (including but not limited to confidential information regarding disciplinary matters, trading data, trading practices and audit information) will be subject to confidentiality restrictions.
• The books and records of ISE Mercury and ISE Holdings must be maintained in the United States
• Furthermore, to the extent that they are related to the activities of ISE Mercury, the books, records, premises, officers, directors, and employees of ISE Holdings will be deemed to be the books, records, premises, officers, directors, and employees of ISE Mercury, for purposes of, and subject to oversight pursuant to, the Act.
• ISE Holdings will take necessary steps to cause its officers, directors, and employees, prior to accepting a position as an officer, director, or employee (as applicable) to consent in writing to the applicability of provisions regarding books and records, confidentiality, jurisdiction, and regulatory obligations, with respect to their activities related to ISE Mercury.
• ISE Holdings Certificate and ISE Holdings Bylaws require that, so long as ISE Holdings controls ISE Mercury, any changes to those documents be submitted to the ISE Mercury Board, and, if required, to be filed with, and as applicable approved by, the Commission pursuant to Section 19 of the Act and the rules thereunder before they may be effective.
Although the Upstream Owners will not carry out any regulatory functions, the activities of each of the Upstream Owners with respect to the operation of ISE Mercury must be consistent with, and not interfere with, the self-regulatory obligations of ISE Mercury. The 2007 Resolutions, as supplemented by the supplemental Resolutions for ISE Mercury, the U.S. Exchange Holdings Certificate, and the U.S. Exchange Holdings Bylaws include certain provisions that are designed to maintain the independence of the self-regulatory function of ISE Mercury, enable ISE Mercury to operate in a manner that complies with the U.S. federal securities laws, including the objectives and requirements of Sections 6(b) and 19(g)
• Each Upstream Owner and each board member, officer, and employee of the Upstream Owners will comply with the U.S. federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder and cooperate with the Commission and ISE Mercury.
• In discharging his or her responsibilities as a board member of an Upstream Owner, each such member must take into consideration the effect that the actions of the Upstream Owner will have on the ability of ISE Mercury to carry out its responsibilities under the Act.
• The Upstream Owners, and their board members, officers, and employees, must give due regard to the preservation of the independence of the self-regulatory function of ISE Mercury.
• The Upstream Owners, and their respective board members, officers, and employees agree to keep confidential information pertaining to the self-regulatory function of ISE Mercury, including, but not limited to, confidential information regarding disciplinary matters, trading data, trading practices, and audit information, contained in the books and records of ISE Mercury and not use such information for any non-regulatory purposes.
• The books and records of the Upstream Owners related to the activities of ISE Mercury must at all times be made available for, and the books and records of U.S. Exchange Holdings must be subject at all times to, inspection and copying by the Commission and ISE Mercury.
• The books, records, officers, directors, and employees of each of the Upstream Owners will be deemed to be the books, records, officers, directors, and employees of ISE Mercury, to the extent that such books and records are related to, or such officers, directors (or equivalent in the case of Eurex Frankfurt and Deutsche Börse) and employees are involved in, the activities of ISE Mercury,
• To the extent involved in the activities of ISE Mercury, the Upstream Owners, and their board members, officers, and employees, irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal courts and the Commission.
• Any change to the governing documents that would have the effect of amending or repealing the ISE Mercury Resolutions or the 2007 Resolutions must be submitted to the ISE Mercury Board,
The ISE Trust Agreement, in addition to enforcing the ownership and voting limits,
The Commission believes that the provisions discussed above, which are designed to help maintain the independence of ISE Mercury's regulatory function and help facilitate the ability of ISE Mercury to carry out its regulatory responsibilities and operate in a manner consistent with the Act, are appropriate and consistent with the requirements of the Act, particularly with Section 6(b)(1), which requires, in part, an exchange to be so organized and have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act.
Moreover, under Section 20(a) of the Act,
As a prerequisite to the Commission's granting of an exchange's application for registration, an exchange must be so organized and have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act.
ISE Mercury will have a Chief Regulatory Officer (“CRO”) with general responsibility for supervision of the regulatory operations of ISE Mercury.
The Corporate Governance Committee will monitor the regulatory program for sufficiency, effectiveness, and independence, and will oversee trade practices and market surveillance, audits, examinations, and other regulatory responsibilities with respect to members and the conduct of investigations.
The Compensation Committee will set compensation for the CRO.
To help ensure the Commission that it has and will continue to have adequate funding to be able to meet its responsibilities under the Act, ISE Mercury represents in its Form 1 Application that, prior to commencing operations as a national securities exchange, ISE Holdings will provide sufficient funding to ISE Mercury for the exchange to carry out its responsibilities under the Act.
ISE Mercury also represents in its Form 1 Application that there is a written agreement between ISE Mercury and ISE Holdings that requires ISE
Unless the SRO is relieved of this responsibility pursuant to Section 17(d) or Section 19(g)(2) of the Act, Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,
ISE Mercury represents to the Commission that it will enter into the following allocation of regulatory responsibilities pursuant to Rule 17d-2 of the Act (“17d-2 Plans”),
• Multiparty 17d-2 Plan for the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibility for Options Sales Practice Matters;
• Multiparty 17d-2 Plan for the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibility for Options Related Market Surveillance Matters;
• Bilateral 17d-2 Plan with FINRA that would cover, among other things, general inspection, examination, and enforcement activity.
If the Commission declares effective the amendments to the multilateral 17d-2 Plans and the new bilateral 17d-2 Plan, another SRO (often FINRA) would assume certain regulatory responsibility for members of ISE Mercury that are also members of the SRO that assumes the regulatory responsibilities. This regulatory structure would be consistent with that of other exchanges, including ISE.
In addition, ISE Mercury represents that it will enter into a third-party Regulatory Service Agreement (“RSA”) with FINRA.
ISE Mercury also represents that it will enter into a facilities management agreement (“FMA”) with ISE.
The Commission believes that it is consistent with the Act for ISE Mercury to contract with other SROs to perform certain examination, enforcement, and disciplinary functions.
As part of its FMA with ISE, ISE Mercury proposes to use dual employees to staff its regulatory services program. In other words, current ISE employees will also serve in a similar capacity for ISE Mercury under the FMA. ISE Mercury represents that the FMA will contain an obligation on the part of ISE Mercury and ISE to preserve the other party's information and materials which are confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secrets and prevent unauthorized use or disclosure to third parties.
The Commission believes that the use of ISE employees by ISE Mercury is appropriate, as the operations, rules, and management of ISE and ISE Mercury will overlap to a considerable degree such that ISE Mercury should benefit by leveraging the experience of current ISE staff. The Commission has approved such arrangements in a similar context.
Access to ISE Mercury will be through the use of Exchange Rights.
Membership in ISE Mercury will be open to any broker-dealer registered under Section 15(b) of the Act that meets the standards for membership set forth in the rules of ISE Mercury.
ISE Mercury will have three classes of membership: (1) PMMs; (2) CMMs; and (3) EAMs.
The Commission finds that ISE Mercury's proposed membership rules are consistent with the Act, including Section 6(b)(2) of the Act,
The Commission notes that pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act,
In addition, ISE Mercury also will allow non-members to access ISE Mercury as “sponsored customers” of an ISE Mercury member, subject to certain rules.
ISE Mercury intends to become a participant in the Plan Relating to Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Markets or any successor plan (“Linkage Plan”).
ISE Mercury rules include relevant definitions; establish the conditions pursuant to which members may enter orders in accordance with the Linkage Plan; impose obligations on ISE Mercury regarding how it must process incoming orders; establish a general standard that members and ISE Mercury should avoid trade-throughs; establish potential regulatory liability for members that engage in a pattern or practice of trading through other exchanges; and establish obligations with respect to locked and crossed markets.
The Commission believes that ISE Mercury has proposed rules that are designed to comply with the requirements of the Linkage Plan.
Members of ISE Mercury may apply to become one of two types of market maker: PMMs or CMMs (collectively, “Market Makers”). Market Makers are entitled to receive certain benefits and privileges in exchange for fulfilling certain affirmative and negative market-making obligations.
To begin the process of registering as a PMM or CMM, a member will be required to file a written application with ISE Mercury.
In addition, all ISE and ISE Gemini market makers in good standing will be eligible for an Exchange Right in the same membership category in which they operate on ISE and ISE Gemini, respectively, to trade on ISE Mercury.
Once approved, a Market Maker may seek appointment to make markets in one or more options classes traded on the ISE Mercury.
Either the ISE Mercury Board or a committee thereof
The Commission finds that ISE Mercury's proposed rules for the registration and appointment of Market Makers are consistent with the Act. In particular, ISE Mercury's rules provide an objective process by which a member could become a Market Maker on ISE Mercury and provide for oversight by ISE Mercury to monitor for continued compliance by Market Makers with the terms of their application for such status. The Commission notes that ISE Mercury's proposed Market Maker registration and appointment requirements are similar to those of other options exchanges.
Pursuant to ISE Mercury rules, Market Makers will be subject to a number of general obligations. In particular, the transactions of a Market Maker should constitute a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market and a Marker Maker should not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent with such a course of dealings.
Further, Market Makers must maintain minimum net capital in accordance with ISE Mercury rules, including the minimum financial requirement pursuant to ISE Mercury Rule 809, in addition to the Act and rules and regulations thereunder.
ISE Mercury's rules governing Market Maker quoting obligations also are tailored to the specific class of Market Maker (
In options classes other than to which it is appointed, ISE Mercury's rules provide that a Market Maker should not engage in transactions in an account in which it has an interest that are disproportionate in relation to, or in derogation of, the performance of its
If ISE Mercury finds any failure by a Market Maker to properly perform as a market maker, such Market Maker may be subject to suspension or termination.
Although Market Makers have a number of obligations, Market Makers also receive certain benefits for carrying out their responsibilities.
The Commission believes that a market maker must be subject to sufficient and commensurate affirmative obligations, including the obligation to hold itself out as willing to buy and sell options for its own account on a regular or continuous basis, to justify favorable treatment.
ISE Mercury proposes to operate a fully automated electronic options trading platform to buy or sell securities with a continuous, automated matching function.
All orders submitted to ISE Mercury's trading platform must have a designated price and size (limit orders)
Quotes entered by PMMs and CMMs must, like Limit Orders, be priced and have a designated size.
All orders and quotes submitted to ISE Mercury will be displayed unless designated otherwise by the member submitting the order.
ISE Mercury will utilize a pro-rata priority scheme with a Priority Customer preference.
In addition, under ISE Mercury rules, PMMs are granted certain participation entitlements. For example, PMMs will be entitled to a participation entitlement with respect to each incoming order if they have a quote at the NBBO.
These participation entitlements for PMMs are consistent with provisions that the Commission has approved for other exchanges.
ISE Mercury proposes to make available certain additional order processing and matching features, largely based on features available on ISE.
Members will be able to access ISE Mercury through a variety of electronic systems, and non-members will be able to access ISE Mercury pursuant to sponsored access arrangements with ISE Mercury members, pursuant to ISE Mercury rules.
The Commission believes that ISE Mercury's proposed display, execution, and priority rules are consistent with the Act. In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rules are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
Section 11(a)(1) of the Act
Rule 11a2-2(T) under the Act,
In a letter to the Commission,
Rule 11a2-2(T)'s first condition is that the order be executed by an exchange member who is unaffiliated with the member initiating the order. The Commission has stated that the requirement is satisfied when automated exchange facilities are used, such as the ISE Mercury system, as long as the design of these systems ensures that members do not possess any special or unique trading advantages over non-members in handling their orders after transmitting them to the Exchange.
Second, Rule 11a2-2(T) requires orders for covered accounts to be transmitted from off the exchange floor. ISE Mercury will not have a physical trading floor, and like other automated systems, will receive orders electronically through remote terminals or computer-to-computer interfaces. In the context of other automated trading systems, the Commission has found that the off-floor transmission requirement is met if a covered account order is transmitted from a remote location directly to an exchange's floor by electronic means.
Third, Rule 11a2-2(T) requires that the member and any associated person not participate in the execution of its order once it has been transmitted to the member performing the execution.
Fourth, in the case of a transaction effected for an account with respect to which the initiating member or an associated person thereof exercises investment discretion, neither the initiating member nor any associated person thereof may retain any compensation in connection with effecting the transaction, unless the person authorized to transact business for the account has expressly provided otherwise by written contract referring to Section 11(a) of the Act and Rule 11a2-2(T).
As noted above, one prerequisite for the Commission's grant of an exchange's application for registration is that a proposed exchange must be so organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the Act.
ISE Mercury rules codify ISE Mercury's disciplinary jurisdiction over its members, thereby facilitating its ability to enforce its members' compliance with its rules and the federal securities laws.
ISE Mercury's disciplinary and oversight functions will be administered in accordance with Chapter 16 of the ISE Mercury rules, which incorporates by reference Chapter 16 of ISE rules, governing disciplinary jurisdiction. Unless delegated to another SRO pursuant to the terms of an effective 17d-2 Plan,
Upon a finding of probable cause of a violation within the disciplinary jurisdiction of ISE Mercury and where further proceedings are warranted,
Appeals from any determination that impacts access to ISE Mercury, such as termination or suspension of membership, will be instituted under, and governed by, the provisions in Chapter 17 of the ISE Mercury rules, which incorporate by reference the provisions in Chapter 17 of ISE rules. ISE Mercury's Chapter 17 applies to persons economically aggrieved by any of the following actions of ISE Mercury including, but not limited to: (a) Denial of an application to become a member; (b) barring a person from becoming associated with a member; and (c) limiting or prohibiting services provided by the ISE Mercury or services of any exchange member.
Any person aggrieved by an action of ISE Mercury within the scope of the Chapter 17 may file a written application to be heard within thirty days
The Commission finds that ISE Mercury's proposed disciplinary and oversight rules and structure, as well as its proposed process for persons economically aggrieved by certain ISE Mercury actions, are consistent with the requirements of Sections 6(b)(6) and 6(b)(7) of the Act
ISE Mercury does not intend to offer original listings when it commences operations. Instead, ISE Mercury will list and trade only standardized option contracts that are listed on other national securities exchanges and cleared by the Options Clearing Corporation.
The Commission finds that ISE Mercury's proposed initial and continued listing rules are consistent with the Act, including Section 6(b)(5),
ISE Mercury proposes to adopt a rule providing that, in general, ISE Mercury will not be liable for any losses arising from the use of exchange facilities, systems, or equipment.
The Commission finds that ISE Mercury's proposed rule regarding limitation of liability is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5)
As noted above, the Commission received one comment letter regarding the Form 1 Application. In its letter, Wolverine recommends that the Commission disapprove the Form 1 Application.
In response, ISE Mercury provides that the “comment letter does not raise any new issues unique to the creation of ISE Mercury.”
The Commission believes that ISE Mercury has sufficiently addressed the principal concerns raised by the commenter. The Commission acknowledges the concerns that were raised by the commenter regarding possible impacts resulting from potential market fragmentation that may result from the approval of the Form 1 Application. However, the Commission also notes that the commenter did not identify any specific Exchange Act provision or rule or regulation thereunder that would be inconsistent with the approval of the Form 1 Application. Although the Commission continuously considers issues related to market structure—including the issues raised by the commenter—pursuant to Sections 6 and 19 of the Exchange Act, the Commission must grant an application for registration as a national securities exchange if it finds that the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder with respect to the applicant are satisfied.
ISE Mercury proposes to incorporate by reference certain ISE, CBOE, NYSE and FINRA rules.
In connection with the proposal to incorporate ISE, CBOE, NYSE and FINRA rules by reference, ISE Mercury requests, pursuant to Rule 240.0-12 under the Act,
Using the authority under Section 36 of the Act, the Commission previously exempted certain SROs from the requirement to file proposed rule changes under Section 19(b) of the Act.
IT IS ORDERED that the application of ISE Mercury for registration as a national securities exchange be, and it hereby is, granted.
IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that operation of ISE Mercury is conditioned on the satisfaction of the requirements below:
A.
B.
C.
D.
By the Commission.
The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of January 2016. A copy of each application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
The Commission: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Jessica Shin, Law Clerk, at (202) 551-5921 or Chief Counsel's Office at (202) 551-6821; SEC, Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-8010.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to change the fees and credits for Cross Asset Tier 2 in the Fee Schedule. Specifically, for securities with a per share price $1.00 or above, the Exchange proposes to: (1) Replace the numeric benchmark needed to be eligible for the tier with a benchmark based on a percentage of options contract volume, and (2) provide a second way to qualify for the Cross Asset Tier 2 credits for orders that provide liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective January 28, 2016.
Currently, Cross Asset Tier 2 fees and credits apply to ETP Holders and Market Makers that (a) provide liquidity an average daily volume share per month of 0.30% or more of the US Consolidated Average Daily Volume (“CADV”), and (b) are affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that provides an ADV of electronic posted executions for the account of a market maker in Penny Pilot issues on NYSE Arca Options (excluding mini options) of at least 90,000 contracts. Such ETP Holders and Market Makers receive a credit of $0.0031 per share for orders that provide liquidity to the order book in Tape A Securities; a credit of $0.0030 per share for providing liquidity to the order book and a fee of $0.0028 per share for taking liquidity from the order book in Tape B Securities; and a credit of $0.0033 per share for providing liquidity to the order book and a fee of $0.0029 per share for taking liquidity from the order book in Tape C Securities.
The Exchange proposes to replace the current fixed 90,000 contract requirement with a variable requirement of at least 0.75% of total Customer equity and exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) option ADV, as reported by the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”).
The Exchange proposes to make a clarifying amendment to the text of the Fee Schedule to more accurately reflect the application of the Cross Asset Tier 2. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to delete the potentially confusing phrase “(including all account types)” following “electronic posted executions” and before “in Penny Pilot issues on NYSE Arca Options” in current clause (b) of the Fee Schedule consistent with the filing adopting the Cross Asset Tier 2.
The Exchange also proposes to permit ETP Holders, including Market Makers, to alternatively qualify for the Cross Asset Tier 2 credits if they (1) provide liquidity an ADV share per month of 0.40% or more of the CADV, and (2) are affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that provides an ADV of electronic posted executions for the account of a market maker in Penny Pilot issues on NYSE Arca Options (again, excluding mini options) of at least 0.65% of total Customer equity and ETF option ADV, as reported by OCC.
The Exchange does not propose any other changes to the fees and credits currently applicable to Cross Asset Tier 2.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems that market participants would have in complying with the proposed changes.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposal to amend Cross Asset Tier 2 to replace the current fixed benchmark needed to be eligible for the tier with a variable benchmark based on a percentage of volume is reasonable because it would make the eligibility requirement consistent with the Exchange's other variable eligibility requirements that also are based on percentage of volume. In addition, the Exchange believes that expanding the basis for the Cross-Asset Tier 2 to include all Customer equity and ETF options ADV would better reflect the correlation between options trading and the underlying securities, which trade at the Exchange, including ETFs. In this respect, the Exchange notes that Equity and ETF Customer volume is a widely followed benchmark of industry volume and is indicative of industry market share.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to amend Cross Asset Tier 2 is reasonable because it provides ETP Holders and Market Makers affiliated with an NYSE Arca Options OTP Holder or OTP Firm with an additional way to qualify for the Cross Asset Tier 2 rebates through equity and option orders. The Exchange believes that the proposed alternative to qualify for the tier utilizing a higher equity volume requirement (0.40%) and a lower options volume requirement (0.65%) is reasonable because the proposal provides firms with greater flexibility to reach volume tiers across asset classes, thereby creating an added incentive for ETP Holders to bring additional order flow to a public market.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all ETP Holders would be subject to the same fee structure and be offered the same alternative to qualifying for the Cross-Asset Tier 2 credit. Moreover, the Cross-Asset Tier 2 credit is available for all ETP Holders to satisfy, except for those ETP Holders that are not affiliated with an NYSE Arca Options OTP Holder or OTP Firm. ETP Holders that are not affiliated with an NYSE Arca Options OTP Holder or OTP Firm are still eligible for fees and credits by means other than the Cross Asset Tier. NASDAQ similarly charges certain fees based on both equity and options volume.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposal is reasonable and would continue to directly relate to the activity of an ETP Holder and the activity of an affiliated OTP Holder or OTP Firm on NYSE Arca Options, thereby encouraging increased trading activity on both the NYSE Arca equity and option markets. In this regard, the proposal is designed to bring additional posted order flow to NYSE Arca Options, so as to provide additional opportunities for all OTP Holders and OTP Firms to trade on NYSE Arca Options. Furthermore, similar to the revised Cross Asset Tier, the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule includes a credit for OTP Holders and OTP Firms that is based on both equity and options volume.
The Exchange believes that deleting the phrase “(including all account types)” in current clause (b) of the Fee Schedule consistent with the filing
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Further, the proposal to amend the requirements to qualify for Cross Asset Tier 2 and add another way to qualify for the Cross-Asset Tier 2 credits will not place an undue burden on competition because the tier would remain available for all ETP Holders to satisfy except those ETP Holders that are not affiliated with an NYSE Arca Options OTP Holder or OTP Firm. ETP Holders that are not affiliated with an NYSE Arca Options OTP Holder or OTP Firm are eligible for fees and credits by other means than the Cross Asset Tier 2. ETP Holders would be subject to the same fee structure and be offered the same alternatives to qualifying for the Cross-Asset Tier 2 credit.
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges.
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of ETP Holders or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Monday, February 8, 2016, at 1:00 p.m., in the Auditorium (L-002) at the Commission's headquarters building, to hear oral argument in an appeal from an initial decision of an administrative law judge by the Respondent, Bernerd Young (“Young”), former chief compliance officer of Stanford Group Company (“SGC”). The law judge found that Young was a cause of violations by SGC of the antifraud provisions of Section 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 through false and misleading statements and omissions in marketing materials for “certificates of deposit” issued by Stanford International Bank Ltd., an affiliate of SGC. In addition, the law judge found that Young violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder in connection with statements designed to “attack” concerns raised about the certificates of deposit and to “forestall redemptions and continue sales.” The law judge further found that Young aided and abetted and caused violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, Exchange Act Section 15(c)(1), and Advisers Act Sections 206(1) and (2) in connection with these misrepresentations and omissions.
Based on her findings, the law judge issued a cease-and-desist order against Young; barred him from associating with a broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization; and prohibited him from serving or acting in certain capacities with respect to an investment company. The law judge also ordered Young to pay $591,992.46 in disgorgement, with prejudgment interest, and assessed a third-tier civil penalty of $260,000.
Young appealed the law judge's findings of violation and the sanctions imposed. The issues likely to be considered at oral argument include, among other things, whether Young violated the antifraud provisions as alleged and, if so, the extent to which he should be sanctioned for those violations.
For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act” or “Act”)
The MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change consisting of proposed amendments to Rule A-3, on membership on the Board, to lengthen the term of Board member service, change the number and size of Board classes, limit the number of consecutive terms a Board member can serve, eliminate the requirement that there be at least one municipal advisor representative per class that is not associated with a dealer (“non-dealer municipal advisor”), delete an obsolete transition provision and provide a technical update to the name of a Board committee (collectively, the “proposed rule change”). The MSRB requests that the proposed rule change be effective on the date of Commission approval.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The MSRB has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The MSRB is the self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) created by Congress to establish regulation for the $3.7 trillion municipal securities market, including rules governing the municipal securities activities of dealers and the municipal advisory activities of municipal advisors. The MSRB's mission is to protect municipal entities, obligated persons, investors and the public interest, and to promote a fair and efficient municipal securities market. The Board is comprised of 21
Many general, and some more detailed, aspects of the Board's composition are set forth in the Exchange Act.
At the same time, Congress delegated authority to the MSRB to determine many aspects of Board composition by rule, including such important aspects as the size of the Board and the length of the term of Board member service.
In June 2015, the MSRB published a request for comment on several Board governance matters, including whether the MSRB should consider, at a conceptual level, proposing amendments to modify the length of Board member service.
The MSRB carefully considered all of the comments received in response to the First Request for Comment and determined to publish a second request for comment on draft amendments to lengthen the term of Board member service from three years to four years.
The optimal term length for members of an organization depends to a great extent upon the particular characteristics of the organization, including the nature of its mission and its activities. It is necessarily a balance among numerous competing interests, such as the interests in continuity, institutional knowledge and membership experience, on the one hand, and the interest in the addition of new perspectives, on the other. To date, the MSRB has aimed to achieve this balance using a Board member term of three years, but it now believes that the desired balance could be better achieved using an incrementally longer Board member term of four years.
Based on its experience and the views repeatedly expressed by former Board members, the MSRB believes that members are capable of making significantly increasing contributions with each year that they become more fully acclimated to the role and work of the MSRB.
Greater continuity and institutional knowledge is very important for the MSRB rulemaking process. This process, particularly for rules that are complex or address unique problems, frequently spans multiple years from conception to full implementation.
The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change would ensure greater continuity and institutional knowledge from year to year, particularly through
The proposed rule change would lengthen the term of Board member service from three years to four years, and it would facilitate the new, longer term length by increasing the number of Board classes and adjusting their sizes. Additionally, the proposed rule change would limit the number of consecutive terms a Board member can serve to two, and would eliminate the requirement that there be at least one non-dealer municipal advisor per Board class. Finally, the proposed amendments would delete an obsolete provision from the rule.
All of the amendments included in the proposed rule change are to Rule A-3(b)(i). First, they would increase the Board member term length from three years to four years and the number of Board classes from three to four—one class comprised of six members and three classes of five. The changes in the number of classes and their sizes would ensure that the MSRB nominates and elects new members every year, maintains classes that are as evenly distributed in size as possible, and has a Board composition that always satisfies the statutorily-required position allocations,
Second, no Board member could serve more than two consecutive terms—eight years in total—which could only occur under the special circumstances exception. This added provision would ensure that the special circumstances exception is not overused, mitigate some commenters' concerns of Board members becoming too dominant and unduly influential,
Third, the proposed rule change would eliminate the requirement that there be at least one non-dealer municipal advisor.
To effectuate the changes in term length and the number and size of classes, the MSRB would implement a transition plan, under which each Board member, who was elected prior to, and whose term ends on or after the end of, the MSRB's fiscal year 2016,
MSRB Rule A-3(h) currently describes the transition process the MSRB used to increase its Board size from 15 to 21 members during its fiscal years 2013 and 2014, and to be in compliance with new requirements established by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.
Finally, MSRB Rule A-3(g)(ii) makes reference to the “Nominating Committee,” which is now called the “Nominating and Governance Committee.” Accordingly, the proposed rule change would update the reference to the current name of the committee.
The MSRB has adopted the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 15B(b)(2)(B) of the Act, which provides that the MSRB's rules shall:
(i) shall provide that the number of [P]ublic [R]epresentatives of the Board shall at all times exceed the total number of [R]egulated
(ii) shall specify the length or lengths of terms members shall serve;
(iii) may increase the number of members which shall constitute the whole Board, provided that such number is an odd number; and
(iv) shall establish requirements regarding the independence of public representatives.
Specifically, the MSRB believes the increase of the term length from three to four years, the change in the number and size of Board classes from three classes of seven members to one class of six and three classes of five, and the elimination of the requirement that there be one non-dealer municipal advisor per class are consistent with the Exchange Act in that the composition of the Board would continue to satisfy all of the statutory requirements.
The MSRB also believes the limitation of consecutive terms to two, totaling a maximum of eight years of consecutive service, is consistent with the Exchange Act in that it specifies the length of term that Board members can serve when the MSRB invokes the special circumstances exception.
Further, the MSRB believes the proposed deletion of the transition process described in MSRB Rule A-3(h) is consistent with the Exchange Act because removing the obsolete provision would improve the clarity and readability of the rule. The MSRB also believes the proposed update to the reference to the “Nominating and Governance Committee” in MSRB Rule A-3(g)(ii) is consistent with the Act because it promotes the accuracy of the rule in regard to a reference to a component of the Board's governance structure.
Finally, none of the amendments in the proposed rule change alters the number of members that constitutes the whole Board or the requirements regarding the independence of Public Representatives.
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires that MSRB rules not be designed to impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it is concerned solely with the administration of the SRO.
The MSRB received nine comment letters specifically addressing the issue of whether to modify the length of Board member service in the First Request for Comment
As noted above, all of the comments in response to the Second Request for Comment supported increasing the length of Board member service from three years to four years.
SIFMA supported the increase in term length from three to four years and believes the change would improve continuity and institutional knowledge of the Board from year to year. However,
First, the MSRB does not believe it should more explicitly define the special circumstances exception, which the Commission approved in January 2011.
Second, the MSRB does not believe it is appropriate to impose a maximum lifetime limit on Board service, as it would limit the pool of applicants to serve on the Board from year to year. The pool of applicants from which the MSRB can consider and select new Board members is already limited by the statutory requirement that each Board member be “knowledgeable of matters related to the municipal securities markets,”
Finally, the MSRB does not believe it should specify that, when a Board member, who has already served a full term is retained or recalled to fill a sudden vacancy, the member's extended term be temporary for only as long as necessary to recruit a qualified, permanent new member to fill the vacancy. Since a Board member can only be retained under the special circumstances exception, the first part of SIFMA's suggestion is more of a critique of that exception and/or the MSRB's use of it. As noted above, however, the special circumstances exception has been approved by the Commission. Further, depending on the nature and timing of a vacancy on the Board, it may be more efficient for the MSRB to recall a former Board member. In particular, for vacancies that occur in the middle of a fiscal year or in the middle to end of a vacating Board member's term, the amount of time and resources required to find, select and onboard a new member typically would be significantly greater than the time and resources required to do the same for a former Board member. This disparity in efficiency would be even greater when compared to a two-part process in which a former Board member is temporarily seated and, after a short period, replaced by a new Board member. Additionally, the temporary status of the former Board member could potentially limit his or her effectiveness on the Board. Accordingly, the MSRB believes it is in the best interest of the organization to continue to have the flexibility to select from among former Board members, as well as from among all other sources, to fill a vacancy for the remainder of a vacating Board member's term.
While the MSRB does not support specifying or limiting the circumstances under which a Board member may serve more than four years in any of the ways SIFMA suggested, the proposed rule change would limit the number of consecutive terms a Board member can serve to two, which could only occur when the MSRB invokes the special circumstances exception, to address the general concern among commenters about unduly long tenures. There is empirical evidence to suggest very long board tenures are associated with weaker corporate governance and less favorable organizational performance.
To address these concerns, the MSRB believes that Board members should be limited to two consecutive terms when the special circumstances exception is invoked. By doing this, under the proposed rule change, no Board member could serve more than eight years consecutively. This added provision would ensure that the special circumstances exception is not overused, mitigate the concern of Board members becoming too dominant and unduly influential, assure appropriate turnover of Board membership and help maintain a robust pool of applicants for Board service. As noted, the MSRB believes this modification reflects good corporate governance as applied to the particular characteristics of the MSRB.
However, BDA encouraged the MSRB to consider instituting a robust, formalized training program for all incoming Board members in their first year of service to maximize the benefits of the proposed fourth year of service. Similarly, in a comment letter in response to the First Request for Comment, NAMA, which “does not object” to the increase in term length, suggested that the MSRB could devote extensive staff time and other resources to expedite the learning curve for Board members. These comments address internal MSRB matters and do not suggest any revision to the language of the amendments in the proposed rule change. Additionally, the MSRB already allocates significant resources to educating new Board members as part of a robust and dedicated orientation process that begins prior to the commencement of their terms and focuses on organizational and other substantive matters, including, but not limited to, rulemaking and other large initiatives. The MSRB also already routinely revises and improves this process with the benefit of each successive experience orienting new Board members.
In response to the Second Request for Comment, none of the commenters specifically addressed the proposed change from three classes of seven Board members to one class of six members and three classes of five. In response to the First Request for Comment, SIFMA suggested the same structure. The MSRB continues to believe the proposed rule change is appropriate and, in light of the absence of any concern among the commenters, is not making any revision to the proposal in this respect.
In response to the Second Request for Comment, only BDA commented on the proposed elimination of the requirement that there be at least one non-dealer municipal advisor representative per Board class. BDA supported this adjustment because it is its preference to ensure the number of dealer-affiliated regulated entities on the Board is as robust as possible. Given that no commenter opposed the change and that it would neither reduce the representation of municipal advisors nor preclude the MSRB from deciding to include more than three non-dealer municipal advisor representatives on the Board, the MSRB is not making any change to the proposal in this regard.
BDA supported the transition plan to the new term lengths proposed by the MSRB in the Second Request for Comment. In particular, it supported the part of the plan under which a special nominating committee comprised only of Board members not being considered for extensions would nominate the Board members who would receive one-year extensions to be voted on by the full Board. BDA believes that approach to be fair in that members on the special committee providing nominations for term extensions would not be eligible for a longer term, and that it would reduce any potential for self-dealing. SIFMA supported the plan because no existing Board member would serve for more than four years under the transition plan.
After considering this part of the plan further, the MSRB believes it is a better approach to have the full Board vote by ballot on all members eligible for extensions. First, given that 18 of the 21 Board members would be eligible for an extension, it would be difficult for the MSRB to constitute a special committee that is a fair representation of the entire Board. Additionally, despite the change in the process, the ultimate authority of the full Board to determine who would receive an extension is unchanged—under the special committee nomination process, the Board could vote down every nomination until the member, whom the Board would support for an extended term, was nominated. Finally, the MSRB believes that any concerns BDA might have with the potential for conflicts of interest and/or self-dealing under the new process are mitigated because the size of the Board—21 members—and the large number of members eligible for an extension make it more difficult for any one member to inappropriately affect the outcome of the election.
In response to both requests for comment, NAMA stated that the MSRB should consider returning the size of the Board to 15 members. Additionally, NAMA suggested that, if there are term extensions for Board members, the rule amendments should address term lengths for leadership positions and the point in a Board member's term at which he or she becomes eligible for such positions. In response to the First Request for Comment, SIFMA suggested that making a Board member eligible to serve as vice chair in the third year of a four-year term, and as chair in the fourth year, would strengthen the leadership of the Board, as those individuals would be oriented fully to MSRB issues and processes at those points in their tenures. Lastly, Thompson believed the MSRB should consider reviewing the single-year term of the chair. Lamb believed the single-year term of the chair should remain unchanged.
The recommendations regarding Board size, and term lengths and eligibility for leadership positions on the Board, are beyond the scope of the issues presented in both requests for comment. Therefore, the MSRB is not considering such matters at this time.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day Notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is publishing this notice to comply with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), which requires agencies to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before March 7, 2016.
Comments should refer to the information collection by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to:
Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7030
Form 857 is used by SBA examiners to obtain information about financing provided by small business investment companies (SBICs). This information, which is collected directly from the financed small business, provides independent confirmation of information reported to SBA by SBICs, as well as additional information not reported by SBICs.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of MISSOURI (FEMA-4250-DR), dated 01/21/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 01/21/2016, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14603B and for economic injury is 146040.
U.S. Small Business Administration
Notice
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Washington dated 01/28/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4248-DR), dated 01/04/2016 .
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416
The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Mississippi, dated 01/04/2016 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Alabama (FEMA-4251-DR), dated 01/21/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 01/21/2016, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
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:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The FAA's B4UFLY smartphone app will provide situational awareness of flight restrictions—including locations of airports, restricted airspace, special use airspaces, and temporary flight restrictions—based on a user's current or planned flight location.
Written comments should be submitted by March 7, 2016.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to reinstate a previously discontinued information collection. AC Form 8050-5 is an application for a dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate which, under 49 United States Code 1404, may be issued to a person engaged in manufacturing, distributing, or selling aircraft.
Written comments should be submitted by March 7, 2016.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
Written comments should be submitted by April 4, 2016.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Noise Exposure Map notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its determination that the Noise Exposure Maps submitted by the Great Falls International Airport Authority for the Great Falls International Airport under the provisions of 40 U.S.C. 47501
Mr. Scott Eaton at the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Building, Ste. 2, 2725 Skyway Drive, Helena, Montana 59602-1213, Telephone 406-449-5291.
This Notice announces that the FAA finds that the Noise Exposure Maps submitted for Great Falls International Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150, effective January 27, 2016. Under 49 U.S.C., Section 47503, Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (the Act), an airport operator may submit to the FAA Noise Exposure Maps which meet applicable regulations and which depict non-compatible land uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation with interested parties in the local community, government agencies, and persons using the airport. An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150, promulgated pursuant to the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes to take to reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent the introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
The FAA has completed its review of the Noise Exposure Maps and accompanying documentation submitted by the Great Falls International Airport Authority. The documentation that constitutes the “noise exposure maps” as defined in CFR part 150 Section 150.7 includes: Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update Report, Figure 1 Existing (2015) Airport Layout and Land Use Base Map, Figure 2 Forecast (2020) Airport layout and Land Use Base Map, Figure 5 Runway 3/21 Modeled Arrival and Departure Flight Tracks, Figure 6 Runway 3/21 Modeled Flight Pattern Tracks, Figure 7 Runway 16/34 Modeled Arrival and Departure Flight Tracks, Figure 8 Runway 16/34 Modeled Flight Pattern Tracks, Figure 9 Runway 7/25 Modeled Arrival and Departure Flight Tracks, Figure 10 Runway 7/25 Modeled Flight Pattern, Figure 11 Helicopter Modeled Arrival and Departure Flight Tracks, Figure 12 Existing Condition (2015) Noise Exposure Map, Figure 13 Forecast Condition (2020) Noise Exposure Map, Appendix F Forecast of Aircraft Operations at GTF 2015 and 2020, Appendix J Non-Standard Modeling Profiles Request Letter, Appendix K FAA Approval of Non-Standard Modeling Profiles, and Appendix L Public Consultation. The FAA has determined that these noise exposure maps and accompanying documentation are in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is effective on January 27, 2016.
The FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with the procedures contained in Appendix A of CFR part 150. Such determination does not constitute approval of the airport operator's data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve a Noise Compatibility Program or to fund implementation of that Program. If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a Noise Exposure Map submitted under Section 47503 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise exposure contours, or in interpreting the Noise Exposure Maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the
Copies of the full Noise Exposure Map documentation are available for examination at the following locations:
Federal Aviation Administration Authority, Helena Airports District Office, FAA Building, Ste. 2, 2725 Skyway Drive, Helena, MT 59602.
Great Falls International Airport, 2800 Terminal Drive, Great Falls, MT 59404.
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved information collection. The information collected is needed to determine applicant eligibility and compliance for certification of Civil Aviation mechanics and operation of aviation mechanic schools.
Written comments should be submitted by April 4, 2016.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of continuing a task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC).
The FAA assigned the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) a continuation of a task to provide recommendations regarding standards, training guidance, test management, and reference materials for airman certification purposes. The FAA added the Aircraft Mechanic Certificate with Airframe and/or Powerplant ratings to the existing list of certificates and ratings for which the ARAC will provide recommendations. This notice informs the public of the continuing ARAC activity and solicits additional membership for the existing Airman Certification System Working Group (ACS WG).
Van L. Kerns, Manager, Regulatory Support Division, FAA Flight Standards Service, AFS 600, FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; telephone (405) 954-4431, email
As a result of the December 17, 2015 ARAC meeting, the FAA assigned and ARAC accepted and designated this continuation of task to the ACS WG. The ACS WG continues to serve as staff to the ARAC and continues to provide advice and recommendations on the continued assigned task. The ARAC will review and accept the recommendation report and will submit it to the FAA.
The FAA established the ARAC to provide information, advice, and recommendations on aviation related issues that could result in rulemaking to the FAA Administrator, through the Associate Administrator of Aviation Safety.
On December 19, 2013, ARAC accepted the FAA's assignment of a new task to establish an Airman Certification System Working Group (ACS WG) to assist in the development of standards, training guidance, test management, and reference materials for airman certification testing. The FAA announced the ARAC's acceptance of this task through a
The ACS WG will provide advice and recommendations to the ARAC on the development of standards, training guidance, test management, and reference materials for the AMC with Airframe and/or Powerplant ratings.
1. In developing this report, the ACS WG, including its new members, shall familiarize itself with:
a. A report to the FAA from the Airman Testing Standards and Training Aviation Rulemaking Committee: Recommendations to Enhance Airman Knowledge Test Content and Its Processes and Methodologies for Training and Testing (
b. A report from the Airman Testing Standards and Training Working Group to the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee;
c. Aeronautical knowledge and proficiency standards set forth in 14 CFR part 61, Certification: Pilots, Flight Instructors, and Ground Instructors; 14 CFR part 65 Certification: Airman Other Than Flight Crewmembers, subpart D, Mechanics, and Subpart E, Repairmen;
d. FAA Airman Knowledge Test Guides (FAA-G-8082-17E, FAA-G-8082-3A, FAA-G-8082-11C, FAA-G-8082-19);
e. Current Practical Test Standards documents for Private Pilot Airplane (FAA-S-8081-14B); Flight Instructor Airplane (FAA-S-8081-6C); Instrument Rating for Airplane, Helicopter, and Powered Lift (FAA-S-8081-4E);
f. Current Practical Test Standards documents for Aviation Mechanic General (FAA-S-8081-26A); Aviation Mechanic Airframe Practical Test Standards (FAA-S-8081-27A); and Aviation Mechanic Powerplant Practical Test Standards (FAA-S-8081-28A);
g. Current FAA guidance materials, to include the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (FAA-H-8083-25A); the Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3A); the Aviation Instructor's Handbook (FAA-H-8083-9A); the Instrument Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-15A); the Instrument Procedures Handbook (FAA-H-8083-1A); the Aviation Maintenance Technician Handbook- General (FAA-H-8083-30), the Aviation Maintenance Technician Handbook Airframe (FAA-H-8083-31) Volumes 1 and 2; the Aviation Maintenance Technician Handbook Powerplant (FAA-H-8083-32) Volumes 1 and 2; the Aircraft Weight and Balance Handbook (FAA-H-8083-1A); and the appropriate FAA Airman Knowledge Testing Supplements (FAA-CT-8080 series documents).
2. FAA has specifically tasked the ACS WG to support the FAA's goal to enhance aviation safety by providing a means for the aviation industry to provide expert assistance and industry views to the FAA's Flight Standards Service (AFS) on the development, modification, and continued alignment of the major components of the airman certification system, which include:
a. The ACS for airman certificates and ratings (
b. Associated training guidance material (
c. Test management (
d. Reference materials, to include AFS directives and Aviation Safety Inspector guidance; FAA Orders, Advisory Circulars (ACs), and other documents pertaining to the airman certification system.
3. Develop a report containing recommendations on the findings and results of the tasks explained above.
a. The recommendation report should document both majority and dissenting positions on the findings and the rationale for each position.
b. Any disagreements should be documented, including the rationale for each position and the reasons for the disagreement.
4. After the FAA accepts the recommendation report, the FAA may task the ARAC ACS WG to complete the following additional tasks:
a. Provide recommendations for regular industry review of standards, guidance, and test management for each airman certificate or rating included in this task;
b. Provide prioritized recommendations for applying the Airman Certification Standards framework to other airman certifications and ratings;
5. The ACS WG may be reinstated to assist the ARAC by responding to the FAA's questions or concerns after the recommendation report has been submitted.
The recommendation report should be submitted to the FAA for review and acceptance no later than 30 months from the publication date in the
This tasking notice requires two recommendation reports.
• As tasked on December 19, 2013, published on January 29, 2014 [79 FR 4800], and amended at the ARAC's September 17, 2015 meeting, the ACS WG must submit an initial recommendation report covering the ARAC ACS Working Group's initial tasking for the Private Pilot, Commercial Pilot, Airline Transport Pilot, and Instructor certificates and the Instrument Rating to the FAA for review and acceptance no later than December, 2016.
• The addendum recommendation report on the new AMC task must be submitted to the FAA for review and acceptance no later than December, 2017.
The ACS WG must comply with the procedures adopted by the ARAC and are as follows:
1. Conduct a review and analysis of the assigned tasks and any other related materials or documents.
2. Draft and submit a work plan for completion of the task, including the rationale supporting such a plan, for consideration by the ARAC.
3. Provide a status report at each ARAC meeting.
4. Draft and submit the recommendation report based on the review and analysis of the assigned tasks.
5. Present the recommendation reports at the ARAC meeting.
The existing ACS WG continues to be comprised of technical experts having an interest in the assigned task, and the FAA is now soliciting up to five new members with expertise in the aviation maintenance training and testing fields, specifically involving 14 CFR parts 65 and 147. The provisions of the August 13, 2014, Office of Management and Budget guidance, “Revised Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyists to Federal Advisory Committees, Boards, and Commissions” (79 FR 47482), continues the ban on registered lobbyists participating on Agency Boards and Commissions if participating in their “individual capacity.” The revised guidance now allows registered lobbyists to participate on Agency Boards and Commissions in a “representative capacity” for the “express purpose of providing a committee with the views of a nongovernmental entity, a recognizable group of persons or nongovernmental entities (an industry, sector, labor unions, or environmental groups, etc.) or state or local government.” (For further information see Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA) as amended, 2 U.S.C. 1603, 1604, and 1605.)
If you wish to become a member of the ACS WG for the purpose of assisting with the new AMT task, write the person listed under the caption
The members of the Airman Certification System Working Group must actively participate, attend all meetings, and provide written comments when requested. The members must devote the resources necessary to support the working group in meeting any assigned deadlines. The members must keep management and those represented advised of the working group activities and decisions to ensure the proposed technical solutions do not conflict with the position of those represented.
The Secretary of Transportation determined the formation and use of the ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.
The ARAC meetings are open to the public. However, meetings of the ACS WG are not open to the public, except to the extent individuals with an interest and expertise are selected to participate. The FAA will make no public announcement of working group meetings.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. 49 U.S.C. Section 44707 empowers the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to provide for the examination and rating of civilian schools giving instruction in flying. This CFR prescribes the requirements for issuing pilot school certificates, provisional pilot school certificates and associated ratings to qualified applicants.
Written comments should be submitted by March 7, 2016.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. Title 49 U.S.C., Section 44702 authorizes issuance of air carrier operating certificates. 14 CFR part 135 prescribes requirement for Air Carrier/Commercial Operators. The information collected shows compliance and applicant eligibility.
Written comments should be submitted by March 7, 2016.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. This information will be used to issue special flight authorizations for non-revenue transports and non-transport jet operations of Stage 2 airplanes at U.S. airports. Only a minimal amount of data is requested to identify the affected parties and determine whether the purpose for the flight is one of those enumerated by law.
Written comments should be submitted by March 7, 2016.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before March 7, 2016.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Glaceria Mason, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room W52-211 Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mason's telephone number is (202) 366-5876. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice is to inform the interested public that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS) of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) will conduct a public meeting for the Research and Development Forum to be held on March 23 and 24, 2016, in Washington, DC. The OHMS will host the forum to present the results of recently completed projects, brief on new project plans with stakeholders input, and discuss the direction of current and future research projects.
During the meeting OHMS will solicit comments related to new research topics that may be considered for inclusion in its future work. The OHMS will accept research needs statements from industry, academia, and other stakeholders. Some examples of particular interest to OHMS are the research gaps associated with energetic materials characterization and transport, safe transport of energy products (STEP), safe containment and transportation of compressed gasses, safe packaging and transportation of charge storage devices, etc. Identification of other research gaps related to the transportation of hazardous materials will be encouraged in an effort to meet the holistic needs of the transportation community and the DOT's goals: Safety, infrastructure repair, environmental responsibility, quality communities, and economic competitiveness.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016; 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST.
Thursday, March 24, 2016; 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EST.
Conference call-in and “live meeting” capability will be provided. Specific information about conference call-in and live meeting access will be posted when available at:
Dr. Veda Bharath or Tiffany Fossett, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Research and Development, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-0626 and (202) 366-4545. Email:
Department of Transportation.
Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2016-1-12); Docket DOT-OST-2015-0095.
The Department of Transportation is directing all interested parties to show cause why it should not issue an order finding Elite Airways, LLC fit, willing, and able, and awarding it a certificate of public convenience and necessity to conduct interstate scheduled air transportation of persons, property and mail.
Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than February 11, 2016.
Objections and answers to objections should be filed in Docket DOT-OST-2015-0095 and addressed to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room W12-140), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order.
Barbara Snoden, Air Carrier Fitness Division (X-56, Room W86-471), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4834.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning OFAC's information collection requirements for persons providing remittance forwarding services to Cuba, which are contained within the Cuban Assets Control Regulations set forth at 31 CFR part 515.
Written comments must be submitted on or before April 4, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202-622-2410.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained for five years.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of 2 individuals and 1 entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism.”
OFAC's actions described in this notice are effective on January 28, 2016.
Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202/622-2420, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622-2490, Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622-2480, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622-2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury (not toll free numbers).
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site (
On January 28, 2016, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of the following 2 individuals and 1 entity pursuant to E.O. 13224, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism”:
1. NOUREDDINE, Mohamad (a.k.a. NUR-AL-DIN, Muhammad Mustafa); DOB 23 Oct 1974; POB Beirut, Lebanon; nationality Lebanon; Gender Male; Passport RL0629138 (Lebanon) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: HIZBALLAH).
2. ZAHER EL DINE, Hamdi (a.k.a. ZAHREDDINE, Hamdi); DOB 20 Jul 1984; nationality Lebanon; Gender Male; Passport RL2146270 (Lebanon) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: HIZBALLAH).
1. TRADE POINT INTERNATIONAL S.A.R.L., 3rd Floor, Gulf Building, Block B, Hafez Al Asad Street, Airport Highway, Bir Hassan, Beirut, Lebanon; Gulf Building, 3rd Floor, Hafiz Al Asad Autostrade, Ghobeiri, Baabda, Lebanon; Registration ID 2020615 [SDGT] (Linked To: NOUREDDINE, Mohamad).
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the Health Services Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board will conduct in-person and teleconference meetings of its seven Health Services Research (HSR) subcommittees on the dates below from 8:00 a.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m. (unless otherwise listed) at the Sheraton Suites Old Town, 801 North St. Asaph Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 (unless otherwise listed):
• HSR 1—Health Care and Clinical Management on March 1-2, 2016;
• HSR 2—Behavioral, Social, and Cultural Determinants of Health and Care on March 1-2, 2016;
• Nursing Research Initiative (NRI) from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on March 1, 2016 ;
• HSR 4—Mental and Behavioral Health on March 1-2, 2016;
• HSR 5—Health Care System Organization and Delivery on March 1-2, 2016;
• HSR 3—Healthcare Informatics on March 2-3, 2016;
• Career Development Award Meeting on March 2-3, 2016 at the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) Building at 601 Madison Street, Alexandria, VA 22314; and
• HSR 6—Post-acute and Long-term Care on March 3, 2016.
The purpose of the Board is to review health services research and development applications involving the measurement and evaluation of health care services; the testing of new methods of health care delivery and management; and nursing research. Applications are reviewed for scientific
Each subcommittee meeting of the Board will be open to the public the first day for approximately one half-hour at the start of the meeting on March 1-2 (HSR 1, 2, 4, 5 and NRI), March 2-3 (HSR 3 and CDA), and March 3 (HSR 6) to cover administrative matters and to discuss the general status of the program. Members of the public who wish to attend the open portion of the subcommittee meetings may dial 1 (800) 767-1750, participant code 10443.
The remaining portion of each subcommittee meeting will be closed for the discussion, examination, reference to, and oral review of the intramural research proposals and critiques. During the closed portion of each subcommittee meeting, discussion and recommendations will include qualifications of the personnel conducting the studies (the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy), as well as research information (the premature disclosure of which would likely compromise significantly the implementation of proposed agency action regarding such research projects). As provided by subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended by Public Law 94-409, closing the meeting is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (9)(B).
No oral or written comments will be accepted from the public for either portion of the meetings. Those who plan to participate during the open portion of a subcommittee meeting should contact Ms. Liza Catucci, Administrative Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, Health Services Research and Development Service (10P9H), 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, or by email at
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.
On July 13, 2015, the FDIC published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
The FDIC proposes that a final rule would take effect the quarter after the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) reserve ratio has reached 1.15 percent (or the first quarter after a final rule is adopted that the rule can take effect, whichever is later).
Comments must be received by the FDIC no later than March 7, 2016.
You may submit comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Munsell St. Clair, Chief, Banking and Regulatory Policy, Division of Insurance and Research, 202-898-8967; Ashley Mihalik, Senior Financial Economist, Division of Insurance and Research, 202-898-3793; Nefretete Smith, Senior Attorney, Legal Division, 202-898-6851; Thomas Hearn, Counsel, Legal Division, 202-898-6967.
On June 16, 2015, the FDIC's Board of Directors (Board) authorized publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking (the 2015 NPR) to refine the deposit insurance assessment system for established small banks (that is, small banks other than new small banks and insured branches of foreign banks).
The FDIC received a total of 484 comment letters in response to the 2015 NPR. Of these, 45 were from trade groups and 439 were from individuals or banks. The majority of commenters expressed concern regarding the proposed treatment of reciprocal deposits in the 2015 NPR.
The FDIC is issuing this revised NPR in response to comments received regarding the 2015 NPR. The broad outline of this revised NPR remains the same as the 2015 NPR, but this revised NPR revises the proposal by: (1) Using a brokered deposit ratio (that treats reciprocal deposits the same as under current regulations) as a measure in the financial ratios method for calculating assessment rates for established small banks instead of the previously proposed core deposit ratio; (2) removing the existing brokered deposit adjustment for established small banks; (3) revising the previously proposed one-year asset growth measure; (4) re-estimating the statistical model underlying the established small bank deposit insurance assessment system; (5) revising the uniform amount and pricing multipliers used in the financial ratios method; and (6) providing that any future changes to the statistical model underlying the established small bank deposit insurance assessment system would go through notice-and-comment rulemaking.
The FDIC also received comments on parts of the proposal in the 2015 NPR that have not changed in this revised NPR. These comments included suggestions to more heavily weight CAMELS supervisory ratings over various financial ratios and to tailor the loan mix index to individual banks, and assertions that the proposed minimum and maximum assessment rates are inappropriate. The FDIC will consider all comments submitted in response to the 2015 NPR, as well as comments submitted in response to this revised NPR, in developing a final rule. Thus, to reduce burden, those who submitted a comment on the 2015 NPR need not resubmit the comment for it to be considered by the FDIC in developing the final rule. Comments on any aspect of this revised NPR, however, are welcome.
The primary purpose of the proposed rule, like the 2015 NPR, is to improve the risk-based deposit insurance assessment system applicable to small banks to more accurately reflect risk.
Since 2007, assessment rates for established small banks have been determined by placing each bank into one of four risk categories, Risk Categories I, II, III, and IV.
As used in this revised proposal, the term “bank” is synonymous with the term “insured depository institution” as it is used in section 3(c)(2) of the FDI Act, 12 U.S.C 1813(c)(2). As used in this revised proposal, the term “small bank” is synonymous with the term “small institution” as it is used in 12 CFR 327.8. In general, a “small bank” is one with less than $10 billion in total assets.
To further differentiate risk within Risk Category I (which includes most small banks), the FDIC uses the
Within Risk Category I, those institutions that pose the least risk are charged a minimum initial assessment rate and those that pose the greatest risk are charged an initial assessment rate that is four basis points higher than the minimum. All other banks within Risk Category I are charged a rate that varies between these rates. In contrast, all banks in Risk Category II are charged the same initial assessment rate, which is higher than the maximum initial rate for Risk Category I. A single, higher, initial assessment rate applies to each bank in Risk Category III and another, higher, rate to each bank in Risk Category IV.
To determine a Risk Category I bank's initial assessment rate, the weighted CAMELS components and financial ratios are multiplied by statistically derived pricing multipliers, the products are summed, and the sum is added to a uniform amount that applies to all Risk Category I banks. If, however, the rate is below the minimum initial assessment rate for Risk Category I, the bank will pay the minimum initial assessment rate; if the rate derived is above the maximum initial assessment rate for Risk Category I, then the bank will pay the maximum initial rate for the risk category.
The financial ratios used to determine rates come from a statistical model that predicts the probability that a Risk Category I institution will be downgraded from a composite CAMELS rating of 1 or 2 to a rating of 3 or worse within one year. The probability of a CAMELS downgrade is intended as a proxy for the bank's probability of failure. When the model was developed in 2006, the FDIC decided not to attempt to determine a bank's probability of failure because of the lack of bank failures in the years between the end of the bank and thrift crisis in the early 1990s and 2006.
The financial ratios method does not apply to new small banks or to insured branches of foreign banks (insured branches).
In 2011, the FDIC adopted a schedule of assessment rates designed to ensure that the reserve ratio reaches 1.15
The initial assessment rates currently in effect for small and large banks are set forth in Table 2 below.
An institution's total assessment rate may vary from the initial assessment rate as the result of possible adjustments.
In 2011, consistent with the FDIC's long-term fund management plan, the Board adopted lower, moderate assessment rates that will go into effect when the DIF reserve ratio reaches 1.15 percent.
In lieu
The Board has the authority to adopt rates without further notice and comment rulemaking that are higher or lower than the total assessment rates (also known as the total base assessment rates), provided that: (1) The Board cannot increase or decrease rates from one quarter to the next by more than two basis points; and (2) cumulative increases and decreases cannot be more than two basis points higher or lower than the total base assessment rates.
The financial ratios method as revised would use the measures described in the right-hand column of Table 5 below. For comparison's sake, the measures currently used in the financial ratios method are set out on the left-hand column of the table. To avoid unnecessary burden, the proposal will not require established small banks to report any new data in their Reports of Condition and Income (Call Reports).
All of the measures proposed in this revised NPR are derived from a statistical analysis that estimates a bank's probability of failure within three years. Each of the measures is statistically significant in predicting a bank's probability of failure over that period. The statistical analysis used bank financial data and CAMELS ratings from 1985 through 2011, failure data from 1986 through 2014, and loan charge-off data from 2001 through 2014.
Two of the measures proposed in this revised NPR—the weighted average CAMELS component rating and the tier 1 leverage ratio—are identical to the measures currently used in the financial ratios method and are as proposed in the 2015 NPR. The net income before taxes/total assets measure in this revised NPR is virtually identical to the measure proposed in the 2015 NPR and is also almost identical to the current measure. The denominator in the net income before taxes/total assets measure in the revised proposal is total assets rather than risk-weighted assets as under current rules. The definition of the measure in the revised proposal also differs from the definitions in both the 2015 NPR and current rules in that it no longer refers to extraordinary items.
Because the numerator of the proposed net income measure is defined to include income for the most recent twelve months, there may be a transition period in which income for the most recent twelve months may include income from periods before the elimination from GAAP of the concept of extraordinary items has taken effect. For those portions of the most recent twelve months before this elimination has taken effect, income will be determined as income before income taxes and extraordinary items and other adjustments.
The remaining three proposed financial measures, described in detail below, differ from the measures in the current established small bank deposit assessment system.
Under current assessment rules, brokered deposits affect a small bank's assessment rate based on its Risk Category. For established small banks that are assigned to Risk Category I (those that are well capitalized and have a CAMELS composite rating of 1 or 2), the adjusted brokered deposit ratio is one of the financial ratios used to determine a bank's initial assessment rate. The adjusted brokered deposit ratio increases a bank's initial assessment rate when a bank has brokered deposits that exceed 10 percent of its domestic deposits, combined with a high asset growth rate.
Few Risk Category I banks have both high levels of non-reciprocal brokered deposits and high asset growth, so the adjusted brokered deposit ratio affects relatively few banks. As of September 30, 2015, the adjusted brokered deposit ratio affected the assessment rate of 95 banks.
Established small banks in Risk Categories II, III, and IV (those that are less than well capitalized or that have a CAMELS composite rating of 3, 4, or 5) are subject to the brokered deposit adjustment, one of three possible adjustments that can increase or decrease a bank's initial assessment rate. The brokered deposit adjustment increases a bank's assessment rate if it has brokered deposits in excess of 10 percent of its domestic deposits.
The FDIC proposes to replace the adjusted brokered deposit ratio currently used in the financial ratios method with a brokered deposit ratio, measured as the ratio of brokered deposits to total assets. As discussed below, the FDIC also proposes to eliminate the existing brokered deposit adjustment for established small banks. Under the proposed brokered deposit ratio, brokered deposits would increase an assessment rate only for an established small bank that holds brokered deposits in excess of 10 percent of total assets. For a bank that is well capitalized and has a CAMELS composite rating of 1 or 2, reciprocal deposits would be deducted from brokered deposits. For a bank that is less than well capitalized or has a CAMELS composite rating of 3, 4 or 5, however, reciprocal deposits would be included with other brokered deposits.
This treatment of reciprocal deposits is generally consistent with the 442 comment letters on the 2015 NPR arguing that reciprocal deposits should not be treated as brokered deposits for assessment purposes.
The FDIC also received 40 comment letters on the 2015 NPR arguing that reciprocal deposits should be treated as core deposits or are the functional equivalent of core deposits. The FDIC analyzed the characteristics of reciprocal deposits in its Study on Core Deposits and Brokered Deposits and concluded that, “While the FDIC agrees that reciprocal deposits do not present
Sixteen commenters, including banking trade associations, cautioned against penalizing the use of Federal Home Loan Bank advances in determining assessment rates. Some commenters also argued that lowering assessments for core deposits, as proposed in the 2015 NPR, would make Federal Home Loan Bank advances relatively more expensive. Replacing the previously proposed core deposit ratio with a brokered deposit ratio would not change the current treatment of Federal Home Loan Bank advances in the small bank deposit insurance assessment system. In contrast, treating reciprocal deposits as core deposits in the core deposit ratio would create an incentive for established small banks to switch Federal Home Loan Bank advances and other funding sources (other than core deposits) to reciprocal deposit funding, with unpredictable effects on banks' probability of failure.
The FDIC received 18 comments on the proposed one-year asset growth measure in the 2015 NPR. Some commenters argued that the one-year asset growth rate should not penalize normal growth. One commenter suggested that asset growth should not affect assessments until it exceeds an industry-based norm, while other commenters suggested using the “A” (“Asset quality”) CAMELS component instead of a one-year asset growth rate or taking mitigating factors into account in the growth rate.
In response to comments, the FDIC is proposing that the one-year asset growth measure increase the assessment rate only for an established small bank that has had one-year asset growth greater than 10 percent. With this modification, the measure will raise assessment rates for established small banks that grow rapidly (other than through merger or by acquiring failed banks), but will not increase assessments for normal asset growth.
The proposed loan mix index is unchanged from the 2015 NPR. As described in the 2015 NPR, the loan mix index is a measure of the extent to which a bank's total assets include higher-risk categories of loans. The index uses historical charge-off rates to identify loan types with higher risk. Each category of loan in a bank's loan portfolio is divided by the bank's total assets to determine the percentage of the bank's assets represented by that category of loan. Each percentage is then multiplied by that category of loan's historical weighted average industry-wide charge-off rate. The products are then summed to determine the loan mix index value for that bank.
The loan categories in the loan mix index were selected based on the availability of category-specific charge-off rates over a sufficiently lengthy period (2001 through 2014) to be representative. The loan categories exclude credit card loans.
Table 6 below illustrates how the
The table shows industry-wide weighted charge-off percentage rates, the loan category as a percentage of total assets, and the products to two decimal places. In fact, the FDIC proposes to use seven decimal places for industry-wide weighted charge-off percentage rates, and as many decimal places as permitted by the FDIC's computer systems for the loan category as a percentage of total assets and the products. The total (the loan mix index itself) would use three decimal places.
The weighted charge-off rates in the table are the same for all established small banks. The remaining two columns vary from bank to bank, depending on the bank's loan portfolio. For each loan type, the value in the rightmost column is calculated by multiplying the weighted charge-off rate by the bank's loans of that type as a percent of its total assets. In this illustration, the sum of the right-hand column (84.79) is the loan mix index for this bank.
As in the current methodology for Risk Category I small banks, and as proposed in the 2015 NPR, under the revised proposal the weighted CAMELS components and financial ratios would be multiplied by statistically derived pricing multipliers, the products would be summed, and the sum would be added to a uniform amount that would be: (a) Derived from the statistical analysis, (b) adjusted for assessment rates set by the FDIC, and (c) applied to all established small banks.
1. If the bank has no CAMELS composite rating, its initial assessment rate would be 2 basis points above the minimum initial assessment rate for established small banks until it receives a CAMELS composite rating; and
2. If the bank has a CAMELS composite rating but no CAMELS component ratings, its initial assessment rate would be determined using the financial ratios method by substituting its CAMELS composite rating for its weighted average CAMELS component rating and, if the bank has not yet filed four quarterly Call Reports, by annualizing, where appropriate, financial ratios obtained from all quarterly Call Reports that have been filed.
As discussed above, the FDIC proposes to eliminate the brokered deposit adjustment for established small banks.
As under current rules, the DIDA would continue to apply to all banks, and the unsecured debt adjustment would continue to apply to all banks except new banks and insured branches.
Like the 2015 NPR, this revised proposal preserves the lower range of initial base assessment rates previously adopted by the Board. Under current regulations, once the reserve ratio reaches 1.15 percent, initial base assessment rates will fall automatically from the current 5 basis point to 35 basis point range to a 3 basis point to 30 basis point range, as reflected in Table 4. The FDIC adopted the range of initial assessment rates in this rate schedule pursuant to its long-term fund management plan as the FDIC's best estimate of the assessment rates that would have been needed from 1950 to 2010 to maintain a positive fund balance during the past two banking crises. This assessment rate schedule remains the FDIC's best estimate of the long-term rates needed. Consequently, and as discussed in greater detail further below and in detail in Appendix E, the FDIC proposes to convert its statistical model to assessment rates within this 3 basis point to 30 basis point assessment range in a revenue neutral way; that is, in a manner that does not materially change the aggregate assessment revenue collected from established small banks.
As set out in the rate schedule in Table 7 below, for established small banks, the FDIC proposes to eliminate risk categories but maintain the range of initial assessment rates that the Board has previously determined will go into effect starting the quarter after the reserve ratio reaches 1.15 percent.
The FDIC
The FDIC proposes to maintain the range of initial assessment rates, set out in the rate schedule in Table 9 below, that the Board previously determined will go into effect, again without further action by the Board, when the fund reserve ratio at the end of the prior assessment period meets or exceeds 2.5 percent. Unless changed by the Board, these rates would remain in effect as long as the reserve ratio is at or above this level. Table 9 also includes the maximum assessment rates that would apply to CAMELS composite 1- and 2-rated banks and the minimum assessment rates that would apply to CAMELS composite 3-rated banks and CAMELS composite 4- and 5-rated banks.
As proposed in the 2015 NPR, with respect to each of the three assessment rate schedules (Tables 7, 8 and 9), the FDIC proposes that the Board would retain its authority to uniformly adjust assessment rates up or down from the total base assessment rate schedule without further rulemaking, as long as the adjustment does not exceed 2 basis points. Also, with respect to each of the three schedules, the FDIC proposes that, if a bank's CAMELS composite or component ratings change during a quarter in a way that changes the institution's initial base assessment rate, then its assessment rate would be determined separately for each portion of the quarter in which it had different CAMELS composite or component ratings.
As discussed above, and as proposed in the 2015 NPR, the FDIC proposes to convert the statistical model to the assessment rates set out in Table 7 in a revenue neutral manner.
To illustrate the conversion, Table 10 below sets out the pricing multipliers and uniform amounts that would have resulted if the FDIC had converted the statistical model to the assessment rate schedule set out in Table 7 (with a range of assessment rates from 3 basis points to 30 basis points). The pricing multipliers and uniform amount have been set so that, for the third quarter of 2015, aggregate assessments for all established small banks under the revised proposal would have equaled, as closely as reasonably possible, aggregate assessments for all established small banks had the assessment rate schedule in Table 4 been in effect for that assessment period.
The pricing multipliers and uniform amount in Table 10 differ from those in the 2015 NPR because the FDIC has re-estimated the statistical model for this revised proposal using a revised definition of the one-year asset growth measure and a brokered deposit ratio in place of a core deposit ratio.
Partly because the actual conversion will be based upon a later quarter, the pricing multipliers and the uniform amount shown in Table 10 are likely to differ somewhat from those in a final rule.
As discussed above, the statistical analysis used bank financial data and CAMELS ratings from 1985 through 2011, failure data from 1986 through 2014 and loan charge-off data from 2001 through 2014.
As discussed in the 2015 NPR, this revised proposal makes no changes to the current rules governing the assessment rate schedules applicable to insured branches or to the assessment rate schedule applicable to new small banks. The revised proposal also makes no changes to the way in which assessment rates for insured branches and new small banks are determined.
The FDIC is proposing that a final rule would take effect the quarter after the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) reserve ratio has reached 1.15 percent (or the first quarter after a final rule is adopted that the rule can take effect, whichever is later).
To illustrate the effects of the revised proposal on established small bank assessment rates, the FDIC compared actual assessment rates under the current system for established small banks for the third quarter of 2015, using a range of initial assessment rates of 5 basis points to 35 basis points, with the proposed assessment rates in Table 7 of this revised NPR, which has an overall range of initial assessment rates of 3 basis points to 30 basis points; the assessment rates in Table 7 would take effect the quarter after the DIF reserve ratio reaches 1.15 percent.
Chart 1—Illustrative, Hypothetical Comparison of Distribution of Assessment Rates for Established Small Banks (Comparing Actual Third Quarter of 2015 Initial Assessment Rates for the Current System to the Revised Proposal)
Due in large part to the overall decline in rates once the reserve ratio reaches 1.15 percent, most established small banks (5,729 or 93 percent) would have had lower total assessment rates.
To further illustrate the effects of the revised proposal on small bank assessment rates, the FDIC compared hypothetical assessment rates under the revised proposal with the assessment rates established small banks would have been charged for the third quarter of 2015 under the current system if the assessment rate schedule that will go into effect when the reserve ratio reaches 1.15 percent had been in effect. The proportion of established small banks paying the minimum initial assessment rate would also have increased from 26 percent to 56 percent under the revised proposal and the proportion of established small banks paying the maximum initial assessment rate would also have decreased from 0.5 percent of established small banks to 0.1 percent of established small banks under the revised proposal. Chart 2 below graphically compares the distribution of established small bank initial assessment rates under this illustration.
Chart 2—Illustrative, Hypothetical Comparison of Distribution of Assessment Rates for Established Small Banks Based on the Third Quarter of 2015 (Comparing Table 4 Initial Assessment Rates for the Current System to the Revised Proposal)
Most established small banks (3,467 or 56 percent) would have had lower total assessment rates. Among Risk Category I established small banks, 52 percent would have had rate decreases; the average decrease for these banks would have been 1.3 basis points. Of the Risk Category II, III, and IV established small banks, 94 percent would have had rate decreases; the average decrease would have been 4.6 basis points. 1,282 established small banks (21 percent of established small banks) would have had rate increases. Of the Risk Category I established small banks, 23 percent would have had rate increases; the average increase would have been 1.8 basis points. Of the Risk Category II, III, and IV established small banks, 5 percent would have had rate increases; the average increase would have been 2.4 basis points. Again, the results of the comparison are similar to those that would have resulted from a comparison of assessment rates that, under current rules, would have gone into effect when the reserve ratio reaches 1.15 percent with those proposed in the 2015 NPR.
Appendix 2 to the Supplementary Information section of this notice discusses the effect of the revised proposal on the capital and earnings of established small banks in detail. Using balance sheet and trailing twelve month income data as of the third quarter 2015, Appendix 2 analyzes the effects of the revised proposal on capital and income in two ways: (1) The effect of the revised proposal compared to the current small bank deposit insurance assessment system under the rate schedule in Table 3 (with an initial assessment rate range of 5 basis points to 35 basis points) (the first comparison); and (2) the effect of the revised proposal compared to the current small bank deposit insurance assessment system under the rate schedule in Table 4 (with an initial assessment rate range of 3 basis points to 30 basis points; this rate schedule is to go into effect the quarter after the DIF reserve ratio reaches 1.15 percent) (the second comparison).
Under either comparison, the revised proposal would cause no small bank to fall below a 4 percent or 2 percent leverage ratio if the bank would otherwise be above these thresholds. Similarly, the revised proposal would cause no small bank to rise above a 4 percent or 2 percent leverage ratio if the bank would otherwise be below these thresholds.
In the first comparison, only approximately 7 percent of profitable established small banks and approximately 4 percent of unprofitable small banks would face a rate increase. All but a very few (16) of these banks would have resulting declines in income (or increases in losses, where the bank is unprofitable) of 5 percent or less. As discussed above, assessment rates for approximately 93 percent of established small banks would decline, resulting in increases in income (or decreases in losses), some of which would be substantial. The effect on earnings of established small banks under the revised proposal in this comparison does not differ materially from the corresponding effect in the 2015 NPR.
In the second comparison, approximately 21 percent of profitable established small banks and approximately 15 percent of unprofitable established small banks would face a rate increase. All but 80 of these banks would have resulting declines in income (or increases in losses, where the bank is unprofitable) of 5 percent or less. As discussed above,
In sum, because the proposed revisions are intended to generate the same total revenue from small banks as would have been generated absent the revised proposal, the revisions should, overall, have no material effect on the capital and earnings of the banking industry, although the revisions will affect the earnings and capital of individual institutions.
To evaluate the proposed revisions to the risk-based deposit insurance assessment system for small banks, the FDIC tested how well the revised system would have differentiated between banks that failed and those that did not during the recent crisis compared to the current small bank deposit insurance assessment system.
Table 11 compares accuracy ratios for the assessment system in the proposed system and the current system. An accuracy ratio compares how well each approach would have discriminated between banks that failed within the projection period and those that did not. The projection period in each case is the three years following the date of the projection (the first column), which is the last day of the year given. Thus, for example, the accuracy ratios for 2006 reflect how well each approach would have discriminated in its projection between banks that failed and those that did not from 2007 through 2009.
The table contains results that do not differ materially from the comparison of the assessment system proposed in the 2015 NPR and the current small bank deposit insurance assessment system. In each comparison, the table reveals that, while the current system did relatively well at capturing risk and predicting failures in more recent years, the proposed system would have not only done significantly better immediately before the recent crisis and at the beginning of the crisis, but also better overall.
Appendix 1 to the Supplementary Information section of this notice contains a more detailed description of the FDIC's backtests of the revised proposal.
In the 2015 NPR, the FDIC solicited comments on the following alternatives: different minimum and maximum assessment rates based on CAMELS composite ratings, including higher, lower, or no minimum or maximum initial assessment rates for banks with certain CAMELS ratings; the inclusion of loss given default (LGD) in the new statistical model; and no changes to the small bank deposit insurance assessment system. The discussion of these alternatives is found in the 2015 NPR.
The FDIC seeks comment on every aspect of this proposed rulemaking, particularly revisions made to the 2015 NPR, including the brokered deposit ratio and one-year asset growth measure.
The FDIC received comments on parts of the proposal in the 2015 NPR that have not changed in this revised NPR. The FDIC will consider all comments submitted in response to the 2015 NPR, as well as comments submitted in response to this revised NPR, in developing a final rule. Thus, to reduce burden, those who submitted a comment on the 2015 NPR need not resubmit the comment for it to be considered by the FDIC in developing the final rule. However, comments on any aspect of the revised NPR are welcome.
The FDIC has carefully considered the potential impacts on all banking organizations, including community banking organizations, and has sought to minimize the potential burden of these changes where consistent with applicable law and the agencies' goals.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that each federal agency either certify that a proposed rule would not, if adopted in final form, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the proposal and publish the analysis for comment.
As of September 30, 2015, of the 6,270 insured commercial banks and savings institutions, there were 5,015 small insured depository institutions as that term is defined for purposes of the RFA (
For purposes of this analysis, whether the FDIC were to collect needed assessments under the existing rule or under the proposed rule, the total amount of assessments collected would be the same. The FDIC's total assessment needs are driven by the FDIC's aggregate projected and actual insurance losses, expenses, investment income, and insured deposit growth, among other factors, and assessment rates are set pursuant to the FDIC's long-term fund management plan. This analysis demonstrates how the new pricing system under the proposed range of initial assessment rates of 3 basis points to 30 basis points (P330) could affect small entities relative to the current assessment rate schedule (C535) and relative to the rate schedule that under current regulations will be in effect when the reserve ratio exceeds 1.15 percent (C330).
The economic impact of the revised proposal on each small institution for RFA purposes (
Based on the September 30, 2015 data, of the total of 5,015 small institutions, no institution would have experienced an increase in assessments equal to five percent or more of its total revenue. These figures do not reflect a significant economic impact on revenues for a substantial number of small insured institutions. Table 12 below sets forth the results of the analysis in more detail.
The FDIC performed a similar analysis to determine the impact on profits for small institutions. Based on September 30, 2015 data, of those small institutions with reported profits, 13 institutions would have an increase in assessments equal to 10 percent or more of their profits. Again, these figures do not reflect a significant economic impact on profits for a substantial number of small insured institutions. Table 13 sets forth the results of the analysis in more detail.
Table 13 excludes small institutions that either show no profit or show a loss, because a percentage cannot be calculated. The FDIC analyzed the effect of the revised proposal on these institutions by determining the annual assessment change (either an increase or a decrease) that would result. Table 14 below shows that 23 (seven percent) of the 314 small insured institutions with negative or no reported profits would have an increase of $20,000 or more in their annual assessments.
Based on the September 30, 2015 data, of the total of 5,015 small institutions, no institution would have experienced an increase in assessments equal to five percent or more of its total revenue. These figures do not reflect a significant economic impact on revenues for a substantial number of small insured institutions. Table 15 below sets forth the results of the analysis in more detail.
The FDIC performed a similar analysis to determine the impact on profits for small institutions. Based on September 30, 2015 data, of those small institutions with reported profits, 3 institutions would have an increase in assessments equal to 10 percent or more of their profits. Again, these figures do not reflect a significant economic impact on profits for a substantial number of small insured institutions. Table 16 sets forth the results of the analysis in more detail.
Table 16 excludes small institutions that either show no profit or show a loss, because a percentage cannot be calculated. The FDIC analyzed the effect of the revised proposal on these institutions by determining the annual assessment change (either an increase or a decrease) that would result. Table 17 below shows that just 6 (2 percent) of the 314 small insured institutions with negative or no reported profits would have an increase of $20,000 or more in their annual assessments. Again, these figures do not reflect a significant economic impact on profits for a substantial number of small insured institutions.
The proposed rule does not directly impose any “reporting” or “recordkeeping” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The compliance requirements for the proposed rule would not exceed (and, in fact, would be the same as) existing compliance requirements for the current risk-based deposit insurance assessment system for small banks. The FDIC is unaware of any duplicative, overlapping or conflicting federal rules.
The initial RFA analysis set forth above demonstrates that, if adopted in final form, the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small institutions within the meaning of those terms as used in the RFA.
Commenters are invited to provide the FDIC with any information they may have about the likely quantitative effects of the revised proposal on small insured depository institutions (those with $550 million or less in assets).
The Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act (RCDRIA) requires that the FDIC, in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements of new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on insured depository
This revised NPR proposes no additional reporting or disclosure requirements on insured depository institutions, including small depository institutions, nor on the customers of depository institutions.
The proposed rule does not create any new, or revise any existing collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reductions Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The FDIC has determined that the proposed rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681).
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Public Law 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471 (Nov. 12, 1999), requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The FDIC invites your comments on how to make this revised proposal easier to understand. For example:
• Has the FDIC organized the material to suit your needs? If not, how could the material be better organized?
• Are the requirements in the proposed regulation clearly stated? If not, how could the regulation be stated more clearly?
• Does the proposed regulation contain language or jargon that is unclear? If so, which language requires clarification?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the regulation easier to understand?
Appendix 1 to the
This Appendix 1 to the
Table 1.1 lists and describes the variables that are included in the statistical model (the “new model”) used in the revised proposal.
The Tier 1 Leverage Ratio, Net Income before Taxes/Total Assets, Nonperforming Loans and Leases/Gross Assets, Weighted Average of C, A, M, E, L, and S Component Ratings, and Loan Mix Index (“LMI”) are described and discussed in Appendix 1 to the Supplementary Information section of the 2015 NPR.
Among the variables included in the specifications was a one-year asset growth rate. The FDIC also considered a two-year growth rate and lagged one- and two-year growth rates. The one-year growth rates generally had the most explanatory power and additional growth rates did not tend to improve the model's fit. To avoid penalizing normal asset growth, the variable uses only growth in excess of 10 percent. If asset growth is less than 10 percent, the variable is set to zero. This variable has generally the same explanatory power as a variable measuring any positive growth.
Mergers of troubled banks into healthier banks and purchases of failed banks help limit losses to the DIF. Penalizing banks for growth that occurs through the acquisition of troubled or failed banks would create a disincentive for such mergers. Consequently, bank asset growth was adjusted to remove growth resulting from mergers and failed bank acquisitions.
Early test versions of the new model used core deposits as a variable predictive of failure. This variable was statistically significant in-sample across all specifications with a positive correlation with failure. Subsequent versions used brokered deposits as the alternative variable. It provides similar predictive power, and is the variable used for estimating the new model in this revised proposal. Only the portion of brokered deposits above 10 percent of assets is included in the brokered deposit ratio; if the ratio of brokered deposits to assets is less than 10 percent, then the variable is set to zero. For purposes of determining assessments, as opposed to estimation of the new model, reciprocal deposits are excluded from the numerator for banks that are well capitalized and have a CAMELS composite rating of 1 or 2.
The in-sample estimation time period was chosen to be 1985 through 2011, incorporating Call Report data through the end of 2011 and failures through the end of 2014.
To avoid having overlapping three-year look-ahead periods for a given regression, each regression uses data in which only every third year is included. One regression uses insured depository institutions' Call Report and TFR data for the end of 1985 and failures from 1986 through 1988; Call Report and TFR data for the end of 1988 and failures from 1989 through 1991; and so on, ending with Call Report data for the end of 2009 and failures from 2010 through 2012. (See Table 1.2A below.) The second regression uses insured depository institutions' Call Report and TFR data for the end of 1986 and failures from 1987 through 1989, and so on, ending with Call Report data for the end of 2010 and failures from 2011 through 2013. (See Table 1.2B below.) The third regression uses insured depository institutions' Call Report and TFR data for the end of 1987 and failures from 1988 through 1990, and so on, ending with Call Report data for the end of 2011 and failures from 2012 through 2014. (See Table 1.2C below.) Since there is no particular reason for favoring any one of these three regressions over another, the actual model estimates are constructed as an average of each of the three regression estimates for each parameter.
The regressions only include observations for institutions that are at least five years of age, since younger institutions will be subject to a different assessment methodology. Also, since the model will be applied to banks with under $10 billion in assets, larger banks are not included in the regressions.
The data used for estimation is winsorized (that is, extreme values in the data are reset to reduce the effect of outliers) at the 1st percentile and 99th percentile levels for each year. For example, if a variable for a bank has a value greater than the 99th percentile value for that year, then the value for that bank is set to the 99th percentile value before estimation is made.
The test statistics applied follow the analysis of Shumway (2001). In Shumway's formulation, the standard test statistics from a logistic regression used to assess statistical significance are divided by the average number of bank-years per bank; this adjustment corrects for the lack of independence between bank-year observations. That is, an adjustment is made to account for a bank no longer being observed after failure. In Tables 1.2A, 1.2B, and 1.2C below, “WaldChiSq2” shows the adjusted χ-square statistic, and “ProbChiSq2” the associated probability value. (The lower the value of ProbChisSq2, the more statistically significant is the parameter estimate. Parameter estimates with a ProbChiSq2 below .05 are considered to be statistically significant at the .05 level.)
As reported in Tables 1.2A, 1.2B, and 1.2C, banks with a higher leverage ratio are less likely to fail within the next three years. Similarly, banks' earnings before taxes and their core deposits to assets ratios are negatively correlated with failure probability. In contrast, nonperforming loans and the other real estate owned to assets ratios are positively correlated with failure probability.
The estimated coefficients of the variables are statistically significant at the 5% level for all three regression sets except for the asset growth rate variable. The asset growth rate is statistically significant for two out of the three regressions.
The parameter estimates applied for the assessments are the average of the estimates from the three regressions above. These average values are show in Table 1.2D.
When the new model is used to determine assessment rates, the variables Asset Growth and Net Income before Taxes/Total Assets are each bounded as follows:
For example, if Asset Growth in excess of the 10 percent threshold is greater than 230 (percent), then it is reset to 230 to determine assessment rates. After the parameters shown in Table 1.2D were obtained, the values of these bounds were determined by performing an iterative series of backtests covering data from 1985 to 2011, with each iteration testing a different combination of bounds; the combination of bounds that resulted in the best rank correlation (Kendall's tau) between probability of failure and actual failure is the combination of bounds selected.
Using initial base assessment rates,
Figure 1.2 shows the CAP curve for a model (dotted line) compared with two limiting CAP curves. The “random” curve (single straight line) shows what the CAP would look like if the model prediction were purely random; for example, the 30 percent of banks with the highest failure projections would include 30 percent of actual failures. At the other extreme, the two solid straight lines show a CAP curve for a model that perfectly differentiates banks that fail from banks that do not in its projections; thus, for example, assuming that 20 percent of all banks actually failed, for the “perfect” model, the 20 percent of banks with the highest projected failure probability would identify 100 percent of failures.
To illustrate the application of CAP curves to the assessment system, Figure 1.3 shows a CAP curve for the current small bank deposit insurance system based on its risk ranking (as reflected in assessment rates) as of 2006 and on failures over the next three years (2007 through 2009). The horizontal axis coordinates for four points on this curve, “IV”, “III”, “II”, and “I Max”, corresponding to the percentage of small banks reported in Column (A) in Table 1.3 below, and the vertical axis coordinates for the points correspond to the percentage of failures contained within these percentages of small banks, as shown in column (B) in Table 1.3. For example, the point in Figure 1.3 marked “IV” is 0.06 (percentage of small banks in Risk Category IV) on the horizontal axis and 0.65 (percentage of actual failures among small banks in Risk Category IV) on the vertical axis. Similarly, all points to the left of the point marked “III” in Figure 1.3 are Risk Category III and IV rated small banks.
The banks along the horizontal axis corresponding to the horizontal axis coordinates between the points “II” and “I Max” represent Risk Category I small banks that are assessed at the maximum assessment rate for that category. The banks corresponding to the horizontal axis coordinates between the points “I Max” and “I Var” represent Risk Category I small banks that are differentially assessed between the maximum and minimum assessment rates for Risk Category I. (Point “I Var” is not included in Table 1.3.) Banks to the right of the horizontal axis coordinate for the point “I Var” represent Risk Category I small banks that were assessed at the minimum assessment rate.
Where a group of banks along the horizontal axis all have the same risk ranking (that is, where they would all pay the same assessment rate), the CAP curve is constructed as if the failures that occur within this group are uniformly distributed, resulting in a straight line (shown as two parallel lines in CAP curve). Thus, for example, the 26 failures that occurred among the banks on the horizontal axis to the right of “I Var”, which represent the 3,011 Risk Category I small banks that were assessed at the minimum assessment rate as of the end of 2006, are shown as uniformly distributed among this group (that is, as if each successive bank represented 26/3,011 of a failure). This representation results in the straight line between point “I Var” and the point to the extreme upper right of the curve.
Figure 1.4 shows the same CAP curve as Figure 1.3, but adds a CAP curve based on the revised proposal's risk ranking (as reflected in assessment rates) as of 2006 and on failures over the next three years (2007 through 2009).
Figure 1.5 shows the same CAP curve based on the revised proposal's projections as of 2007 and on failures over the next three years (2008 through 2010). The revised proposal is superior at all points except “IV” and the points to the left of that point, where the two models yield identical results.
Figure 1.6 shows the same CAP curve based on the revised proposal's projections as of 2008 and on failures over the next three years (2009 through 2011). The revised proposal is superior at most points, except for a few points on the extreme left and extreme right, where the two models are nearly identical.
Figure 1.7 shows CAP curves for 2009. (Note that the vertical axis is not zero based.) The revised proposal is superior at most points and approximately equal to the current model at some points (near IV, and at points to the right of the “X”).
Figure 1.8 shows CAP curves for 2010. When using 2010 data to rank-order small banks based on failure likelihood, the revised proposal performs worse than the current small bank deposit insurance system for the 2.76 percent of worst-rated small banks (the percentage of banks in Risk Category IV). Bank failures after 2010 occurred in the earlier part of the three-year horizon (more failures in 2011 than in 2013). In such instances, the current small bank deposit insurance system, which has a one-year forecast horizon, can perform better than the revised proposal with a longer forecast horizon. However, the revised proposal performs better than or as well as the current model for all points to the right of the intersection of the two curves (near the point marked “IV”).
Projections from 2011 are shown in Figure 1.9. The current small bank deposit insurance system is slightly superior at point IV. At most other points, the revised proposal is superior or equal to the current model.
Overall, the accuracy of the established small bank assessment system in the revised proposal is superior to the current small bank deposit insurance system. The superiority of the new model is much stronger for projections from the years 2006, 2007, and 2008 than in the years 2010 and 2011. By 2010, CAMELS ratings largely reflected the weakened condition of many banks. Furthermore, for projections from 2010 and 2011, a large portion of the failures of the subsequent three-year horizon were near term—that is, in the earlier part of the three-year horizon. For projections done from 2006, 2007 and 2008, a larger portion of the actual failures were further out in the three-year horizon. Thus, while CAMELS 4 and 5 ratings can be good predictors of near-term failures, the additional indicators from the new model contribute more to forecasting accuracy when the failures are further out in time.
This analysis estimates the effect of the changes in the deposit insurance assessment system and assessment rates in the proposed rule on the equity capital and profitability of banks.
This appendix analyzes how banks' total assessments under the new assessment system using the proposed range of initial base assessment rates of 3 basis points to 30 basis points (P330) could increase or decrease earnings and capital relative to the current initial base assessment rate schedule of 5 basis points to 35 basis points (C535) and relative to the initial base assessment rate schedule of 3 basis points to 30 basis points (C330) that will take effect when the reserve ratio exceeds 1.15 percent under current regulations.
The analysis assumes that annual pre-tax income for each established small bank is equal to trailing twelve month income as of the third quarter of 2015. The analysis also assumes that the effects of changes in assessments are not transferred to customers in the form of changes in borrowing rates, deposit rates, or service fees. Since deposit insurance assessments are a tax-deductible operating expense, increases in the assessment expense can lower taxable
The effect of the change in assessments on an established small bank's income is measured by the change in deposit insurance assessments as a percent of income before assessments, taxes, and extraordinary items and other adjustments (hereafter referred to as “income”).
Under this scenario, the FDIC projects that no established small bank facing an increase in assessments would, as a result of the assessment increase, fall below a 4 percent or 2 percent leverage ratio. Furthermore, no established small bank facing a decrease in assessments would, as a result of the decrease, have its leverage ratio rise above a 4 percent or 2 percent leverage ratio.
The FDIC projects that approximately 85 percent of established small banks that were profitable during the 12 months ending September 30, 2015, would have a decrease in assessments in an amount between 0 and 10 percent of income. Table 2.1 shows that another 8 percent of profitable established small banks would have a reduction in assessments exceeding 10 percent of their income. A total of 413 profitable established small banks would have an increase in assessments, with all but 6 of them facing assessment increases between 0 and 10 percent of their income.
Table 2.2 provides the same analysis for established small banks that were unprofitable during the 12 months ending September 30, 2015. Table 2.2 shows that 50 percent of unprofitable established small banks would have a decrease in assessments in an amount between 0 and 10 percent of their losses. Another 46 percent would have lower assessments in amounts exceeding 10 percent income. Only 14 unprofitable banks would have assessment increases, all but 4 of them in amounts between 0 and 10 percent of losses.
Under this scenario, the FDIC projects that no established small bank facing an increase in assessments would, as a result of the assessment increase, fall below a 4 percent or 2 percent leverage ratio. No established small bank facing a decrease in assessments would, as a result of the assessment decrease, have its leverage ratio rise above the 4 percent or 2 percent threshold.
Table 2.3 shows that 51 percent of established small banks that were profitable during the 12 months ended September 30, 2015, would have a decrease in assessments in an amount between 0 and 10 percent of income. Another 4 percent of profitable established small banks would have a reduction in assessments exceeding 10 percent of their income. A total of 1,238 profitable established small banks would have an increase in assessments, with all but 16 facing assessment increases between 0 and10 percent of their income.
Table 2.4 provides the same analysis for established small banks that were unprofitable during the 12 months ending September 30, 2015. Table 2.4 shows that 58 percent of unprofitable established small banks would have a decrease in assessments in an amount between 0 and 10 percent of their losses. Another 25 percent would have lower assessments in amounts exceeding 10 percent of their losses. Only 51 unprofitable banks would face assessment increases, all but 10 of them in amounts between 0 and 10 percent of losses.
Bank deposit insurance, Banks, Savings Associations.
For the reasons set forth above, the FDIC proposes to amend part 327 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1441, 1813, 1815, 1817-19, 1821.
The revision and additions read as follows:
(l)
(v)
(w)
(x)
(y)
The following pricing methods shall apply through the calendar quarter in which the reserve ratio of the DIF reaches 1.15 percent for the first time after June 30, 2015.
(b) Assessment rate schedules for established small institutions and large and highly complex institutions applicable in the first calendar quarter after June 30, 2015, that the reserve ratio of the DIF reaches or exceeds 1.15 percent for the previous calendar quarter and in all subsequent quarters that the reserve ratio is less than 2 percent.
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(c)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(d)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(e)
(1) New depository institutions, as defined in 327.8(j), shall be subject to the assessment rate schedules as follows:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(A)
(
(
(
(B)
(
(
(
(
(2)
(A)
(B)
(C) All insured branches of foreign banks in any one risk category, other than Risk Category I, will be charged the same initial base assessment rate, subject to adjustment as appropriate.
(ii)
(A)
(B)
(C) All insured branches of foreign banks in any one risk category, other than Risk Category I, will be charged the same initial base assessment rate, subject to adjustment as appropriate.
(iii)
(A)
(B)
(C) All insured branches of foreign banks in any one risk category, other than Risk Category I, will be charged the same initial base assessment rate, subject to adjustment as appropriate.
(f)
(2)
(i) Estimated operating expenses of the Deposit Insurance Fund;
(ii) Case resolution expenditures and income of the Deposit Insurance Fund;
(iii) The projected effects of assessments on the capital and earnings of the institutions paying assessments to the Deposit Insurance Fund;
(iv) The risk factors and other factors taken into account pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1817(b)(1); and
(v) Any other factors the Board may deem appropriate.
(3)
(4)
(a)
(1) Under the financial ratios method, each of seven financial ratios and a weighted average of CAMELS component ratings will be multiplied by a corresponding pricing multiplier. The sum of these products will be added to a uniform amount. The resulting sum shall equal the institution's initial base assessment rate; provided, however, that no institution's initial base assessment rate shall be less than the minimum initial base assessment rate in effect for established small institutions with a particular CAMELS composite rating for that quarter nor greater than the maximum initial base assessment rate in effect for established small institutions with a particular CAMELS composite rating for that quarter. An institution's initial base assessment rate, subject to adjustment pursuant to paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section, as appropriate (resulting in the institution's total base assessment rate, which in no case can be lower than 50 percent of the institution's initial base assessment rate), and adjusted for the actual assessment rates set by the Board under § 327.10(f), will equal an institution's assessment rate. The seven financial ratios are: Tier 1 Leverage Ratio (%); Net Income before Taxes/Total Assets (%); Nonperforming Loans and Leases/Gross Assets (%); Other Real Estate Owned/Gross Assets (%); Brokered Deposit Ratio (%); One Year Asset Growth (%); and Loan Mix Index. The ratios are defined in Table E.1 of Appendix E to this subpart. The ratios will be determined for an assessment period based upon information contained in an institution's report of condition filed as of the last day of the assessment period as set out in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The weighted average of CAMELS component ratings is created by multiplying each component by the following percentages and adding the products: Capital adequacy—25%, Asset quality—20%, Management—25%, Earnings—10%, Liquidity—10%, and Sensitivity to market risk—10%. The following tables set forth the values of the pricing multipliers:
(i)
(A) __Whenever the assessment rate schedule set forth in § 327.10(b) is in effect;
(B) __whenever the assessment rate schedule set forth in § 327.10(c) is in effect; or
(C) __whenever the assessment rate schedule set forth in § 327.10(d) is in effect.
(ii)
(B)
(iii)
(B)
(2)
(b)
(ii) The scorecard for large institutions produces two scores: Performance score and loss severity score.
(A) Performance score for large institutions. The performance score for large institutions is a weighted average of the scores for three measures: The weighted average CAMELS rating score, weighted at 30 percent; the ability to withstand asset-related stress score, weighted at 50 percent; and the ability to withstand funding-related stress score, weighted at 20 percent.
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(B)
(C)
(
(D)
(2)
(ii) The scorecard for highly complex institutions produces two scores: performance and loss severity.
(A) Performance score for highly complex institutions. The performance score for highly complex institutions is the weighted average of the scores for three components: weighted average CAMELS rating, weighted at 30 percent; ability to withstand asset-related stress score, weighted at 50 percent; and ability to withstand funding-related stress score, weighted at 20 percent.
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(B)
(C)
(D)
(3) Adjustment to total score for large institutions and highly complex institutions. The total score for large institutions and highly complex institutions is subject to adjustment, up or down, by a maximum of 15 points, based upon significant risk factors that are not adequately captured in the appropriate scorecard. In making such adjustments, the FDIC may consider such information as financial performance and condition information and other market or supervisory information. The FDIC will also consult with an institution's primary federal regulator and, for state chartered institutions, state banking supervisor.
(i)
(B)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(c)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(4)
(ii)
(iii)
(d)
(2)
(i)
(A) Maintains the pledge of assets required under § 347.209 of this chapter; and
(B) Maintains the eligible assets prescribed under § 347.210 of this chapter at 108 percent or more of the average book value of the insured branch's third-party liabilities for the quarter ending on the report date specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(ii)
(A) Maintains the pledge of assets required under § 347.209 of this chapter; and
(B) Maintains the eligible assets prescribed under § 347.210 of this chapter at 106 percent or more of the average book value of the insured branch's third-party liabilities for the quarter ending on the report date specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section; and
(C) Does not meet the definition of a Well Capitalized insured branch of a foreign bank.
(iii)
(3)
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(A) −3.127 whenever the assessment rate schedule set forth in § 327.10(a) is in effect;
(B) −5.127 whenever the assessment rate schedule set forth in § 327.10(b) is in effect;
(C) −-6.127 whenever the assessment rate schedule set forth in § 327.10(c) is in effect; or
(D) −7.127 whenever the assessment rate schedule set forth in § 327.10(d) is in effect.
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(e)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(f)
(2)
(3)
(g)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(A) If the institution does not have a CAMELS composite rating, its initial base assessment rate shall be 2 basis points above the minimum initial base assessment rate applicable to established small institutions until it receives a CAMELS composite rating.
(B) If the institution has a CAMELS composite rating but no CAMELS component ratings, its initial assessment rate shall be determined using the financial ratios method, as set forth in (a)(1) of this section, but its CAMELS composite rating will be substituted for its weighted average CAMELS component rating and, if the institution has not filed four quarterly reports of condition, then the assessment rate will be determined by annualizing, where appropriate, financial ratios from all quarterly reports of condition that have been filed.
(ii)
(5)
(h)
The uniform amount and pricing multipliers are derived from:
• A model (the Statistical Model) that estimates the probability of failure of an institution over a three-year horizon;
• The minimum initial base assessment rate;
• The maximum initial base assessment rate;
• Thresholds marking the points at which the maximum and minimum assessment rates become effective.
The Statistical Model estimates the probability of an insured depository institution failing within three years using a logistic regression and pooled time-series cross-sectional data;
Table E.1 lists and defines the explanatory variables (regressors) in the Statistical Model and the measures used in Sec. 327.16(a)(1).
The financial variable measures used to estimate the failure probabilities are obtained from Call Reports and TFRs. The weighted average of the “C,” “A,” “M,” “E”, “L”, and “S” component ratings measure is based on component ratings obtained from the most recent bank examination conducted within 24 months before the date of the Call Report or TFR.
The Loan Mix Index assigns loans to the categories of loans described in Table E.2. For each loan category, a charge-off rate is calculated for each year from 2001 through 2014. The charge-off rate for each year is the aggregate charge-off rate on all such loans held by small institutions in that year. A weighted average charge-off rate is then calculated for each loan category, where the weight for each year is based on the number of small-bank failures during that year.
For each of the three regression estimates (Regression 1, Regression 2 and Regression 3), the estimated probability of failure (over a three-year horizon) of institution
The uniform amount and pricing multipliers used to compute the annual initial base assessment rate in basis points,
Solving equation 3 for minimum and maximum initial base assessment rates simultaneously,
The values for Z
Therefore from equation 3, it follows that
Substituting equation 2 produces an annual initial base assessment rate for institution
By order of the Board of Directors.
| 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 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR