81_FR_245
Page Range | 93571-93790 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
81 FR 93789 - Wright Brothers Day, 2016 | |
81 FR 93787 - Returning the Flag of the United States to Full- Staff | |
81 FR 93684 - Deletion of Items From Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 93719 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting an Extension to Limited Exemption From Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS in Connection With the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program Until June 30, 2017 | |
81 FR 93638 - Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet | |
81 FR 93681 - Final EPA-USGS Technical Report: Protecting Aquatic Life from Effects of Hydrologic Alteration | |
81 FR 93666 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Chesapeake Bay Watershed Environmental Literacy Indicator Tool | |
81 FR 93728 - Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements: Agency Information Collection Activity | |
81 FR 93707 - Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision and the Approved Resource Management Plans for the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs National Conservation Areas; and Approved Amendment to the St. George Field Office Resource Management Plan in Washington County, Utah | |
81 FR 93686 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
81 FR 93686 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies | |
81 FR 93685 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
81 FR 93671 - Applications for New Awards; Supporting Effective Educator Development Grant Program | |
81 FR 93704 - Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council; Public Meeting | |
81 FR 93700 - Establishment of Tribal Intergovernmental Advisory Committee; Request for Nominations for Tribal Intergovernmental Membership | |
81 FR 93700 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Consolidated Public Housing Certification of Completion | |
81 FR 93699 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Public Housing Contracting With Resident-Owned Business-Application Requirements | |
81 FR 93698 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Allocation of Operating Subsidies Under the Operating Fund Formula: Data Collection | |
81 FR 93725 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
81 FR 93713 - Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Electric Power Research Institute | |
81 FR 93693 - DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 93712 - Discount Rates for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Federal Programs | |
81 FR 93600 - Special Regulations; Areas of the National Park System, Cape Hatteras National Seashore-Off-Road Vehicle Management | |
81 FR 93669 - Extension of the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program | |
81 FR 93658 - Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Japan; Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Japan and Romania: Final Results of the Expedited Third Five-Year Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders | |
81 FR 93580 - Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C) Adjustment to Asset-Size Exemption Threshold | |
81 FR 93581 - Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) Adjustment to Asset-Size Exemption Threshold | |
81 FR 93656 - Virginia Resource Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 93665 - Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results and Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010-2011 | |
81 FR 93666 - Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015 | |
81 FR 93692 - Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc. as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
81 FR 93667 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Conflict of Interest Disclosure for Nonfederal Government Individuals Who Are Candidates To Conduct Peer Reviews | |
81 FR 93656 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
81 FR 93708 - Agency Information Collection; Renewal of a Currently Approved Information Collection (OMB Control Number 1006-0005) | |
81 FR 93711 - Agency Information Collection; Renewal of a Currently Approved Information Collection (OMB Control Number 1006-0006) | |
81 FR 93709 - Agency Information Collection; Renewal of a Currently Approved Information Collection (OMB Control Number 1006-0023) | |
81 FR 93653 - Definitions; Cost Standards and Procedures; Purchasing and Property Management | |
81 FR 93682 - Recent Postings of Broadly Applicable Alternative Test Methods | |
81 FR 93711 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Modification to Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act | |
81 FR 93696 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application To Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident, Form I-698; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection | |
81 FR 93695 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Waiver of Rights, Privileges, Exemptions and Immunities, Form I-508 & I-508F; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection | |
81 FR 93697 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U-1 Nonimmigrant, Form I-929; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection | |
81 FR 93727 - Limitation on Claims Against Proposed Public Transportation Project | |
81 FR 93688 - Information Collection; Prospective Subcontractor Requests for Bonds | |
81 FR 93687 - Submission for OMB Review; Rights in Data and Copyrights | |
81 FR 93688 - Submission for OMB Review; Examination of Records by Comptroller General and Contract Audit | |
81 FR 93730 - Advisory Committee Charter Renewals | |
81 FR 93705 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments | |
81 FR 93722 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Remove Direct Debit for Market Data Products | |
81 FR 93715 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2 Thereto, Relating to Amendments to NYSE MKT Rules 1600 et seq. and the Listing Rules Applicable to the Shares of the Nuveen Diversified Commodity Fund and the Nuveen Long/Short Commodity Total Return Fund | |
81 FR 93692 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 93692 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 93691 - National Institute of Allergy And Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 93691 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 93720 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Rule 4554 Reporting Requirements for Alternative Trading Systems | |
81 FR 93723 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Extending Its Program That Allows Transactions To Take Place at a Price That Is Below $1 Per Option Contract Until July 5, 2017 | |
81 FR 93716 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Extending Its Program That Allows Transactions to Take Place at a Price That Is Below $1 Per Option Contract Until July 5, 2017 | |
81 FR 93718 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Remove Direct Debit for Market Data Products | |
81 FR 93714 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
81 FR 93715 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
81 FR 93714 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service Agreement | |
81 FR 93668 - Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee Meeting | |
81 FR 93685 - Radio Broadcasting Services; AM or FM Proposals To Change The Community of License | |
81 FR 93680 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
81 FR 93689 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Index of Legally Marketed Unapproved New Animal Drugs for Minor Species | |
81 FR 93702 - Joint U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook | |
81 FR 93655 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 93657 - Extension of Deadline for Nominations of Members To Serve on the Commerce Data Advisory Council (CDAC) | |
81 FR 93713 - New Postal Products | |
81 FR 93694 - Intent To Request Approval From OMB of One New Public Collection of Information: Security Appointment Center (SAC) Visitor Request Form and Foreign National Vetting Request | |
81 FR 93577 - Federal Credit Union Occupancy, Planning, and Disposal of Acquired and Abandoned Premises; Incidental Powers | |
81 FR 93664 - Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China and Mexico: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders | |
81 FR 93599 - Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing Benefits | |
81 FR 93572 - United States Standards for Grades of Canned Vegetables | |
81 FR 93595 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of Six Synthetic Cannabinoids (5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA) Into Schedule I | |
81 FR 93642 - Cranberries Grown in the States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York; Proposed Amendment to Marketing Order 929 and Referendum Order | |
81 FR 93571 - Revisions to Inspection Application Requirements | |
81 FR 93583 - Small Business Size Standards for Manufacturing; Correction | |
81 FR 93649 - Special Monthly Compensation for Veterans With Traumatic Brain Injury | |
81 FR 93639 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Identification of 14 Distinct Population Segments of the Humpback Whale and Revision of Species-Wide Listing | |
81 FR 93624 - Determination of Attainment of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Mariposa County, California | |
81 FR 93620 - Determination of Attainment of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Eastern San Luis Obispo, California | |
81 FR 93653 - Determination of Attainment of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Mariposa County, California | |
81 FR 93631 - Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Redesignation of the Columbus, Ohio Area to Attainment of the 2008 Ozone Standard | |
81 FR 93627 - Air Plan Approval; MA; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements | |
81 FR 93660 - Revisions to User Fees for Export and Investment Promotion Services/Events | |
81 FR 93606 - New Mailing Standards for Domestic Mailing Services Products | |
81 FR 93712 - Notice of Information Collection | |
81 FR 93636 - Medicare Program; Implementation of Prior Authorization Process for Certain Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) Items and Publication of the Initial Required Prior Authorization List of DMEPOS Items That Require Prior Authorization as a Condition of Payment | |
81 FR 93622 - Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Regional Haze Progress Report | |
81 FR 93633 - Procedures for Rulemaking Under Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act; Amendment | |
81 FR 93647 - Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) | |
81 FR 93645 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes | |
81 FR 93756 - Terrorism Risk Insurance Program | |
81 FR 93574 - Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority | |
81 FR 93592 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes | |
81 FR 93583 - Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Formerly Known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Airplanes | |
81 FR 93585 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
81 FR 93590 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
81 FR 93732 - Regulations Implementing FAST Act Section 61003-Critical Electric Infrastructure Security and Amending Critical Energy Infrastructure Information; Availability of Certain North American Electric Reliability Corporation Databases to the Commission |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
Inspector General Office, Agriculture Department
Economic Development Administration
Economics and Statistics Administration
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Interim rule with request for comments.
This rule amends the inspection, certification and standards requirements for fresh fruits, vegetables and other products and processed fruits and vegetables, processed products and certain other processed food products (7 CFR parts 51 and 52) by adding an option to allow for electronic submissions of inspection applications. This rule also eliminates outdated terminology referencing submission of inspection applications by telegraph.
Effective December 22, 2016; comments received by February 21, 2017 will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments via the Internet at
Francisco Grazette, USDA, AMS, SCP, SCI Division, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1536, Stop 0240, Washington, DC 20250-0250; telephone: (202) 720-5870; fax: (202) 720-0393; email:
Section 203(c) (7 U.S.C. 1622(c)) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) (Act of 1946), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.
Parts 51 and 52 of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations specify the inspection, certification and standard requirements for fresh and processed fruit, vegetable and specialty crops to ensure uniformity and consistency.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
This interim rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect and does not preempt any state or local law, regulation, or policy unless it presents an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.
This rule amends the inspection, certification and standards requirements for fresh fruits, vegetables and other products and processed fruits and vegetables, processed products and certain other processed food products (7 CFR parts 51 and 52) by adding an option to allow for electronic submissions of inspection applications. This rule also eliminates outdated terminology referencing the telegraph. These changes are administrative in nature and do not impose any new requirements on applicants.
Pursuant to Section 8e of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674) (Act of 1937), whenever certain commodities are regulated under Federal marketing orders, imports of those commodities into the United States are prohibited unless they meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality or maturity requirements as those in effect for domestically-produced commodities. The Act of 1937 also authorizes USDA to perform inspections and other related functions (such as commodity sampling) on those commodities and to certify whether these requirements have been met.
AMS's Specialty Crops Inspection (SCI) Division performs the inspections and other related functions on Section 8e imports in accordance with its authority under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946.
SCI Division is amending 7 CFR parts 51 and 52 to add the ability to submit initial inspection requests electronically and eliminate terminology referencing the telegraph. Individuals desiring to apply for an inspection for applicable fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop imports must complete and file AMS's form SC-357,
Specifically, sections 51.6 and 52.7, “How to make an application” and “Information required in connection with application”, respectively, are being modified by this action.
Amending parts 51 and 52 of title 7 to provide for the electronic filing of the application for inspection supports the International Trade Data System (ITDS), a key White House Initiative that has been under development for over ten years and is mandated for completion by December 31, 2016 (pursuant to Executive Order 13659,
The update to the inspection, certification and standards requirements to allow for electronic submission of
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened.
Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms are defined as those having annual receipts of no more than $7.5 million. Under these definitions, AMS estimates the number of companies affected is approximately 60,000, with 24,000, or 40%, of the companies considered small businesses. AMS does not foresee any negative impact on members of the industry, regardless of size, as a result of this interim rule.
AMS is making these administrative changes to allow for the use of current technology by allowing the application for inspection to be submitted electronically and eliminating references to filing applications for service by telegraph.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection requirements for form SC-357,
In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
This rule invites comments on updates to application requirements and the administrative change to the inspection, certification and standards requirements for fresh and processed fruit, vegetable, and specialty crops. Any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that this interim rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act of 1946. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, AMS has found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect because: (1) The changes in this rule reflect current practices; (2) the import industry is aware of the ITDS initiative and its goal to automate paper-based processes; (3) CBP is requiring the timely update of import regulations to meet the ITDS electronic data submission requirement; and (4) this rule provides a 60-day comment period, and all comments received will be considered prior to the finalization of this rule.
Food grades and standards, Fruits, Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping, Vegetables.
Food grades and standards, Food labeling, Frozen foods, Fruits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vegetables.
7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.
An application for inspection service may be filed in an office of inspection at any market referred to in § 51.4 (b), (c), or (d) or with any inspector. It may be made in writing, orally, electronically, or by telephone. If made orally or by telephone, the inspector may require that it be confirmed by the applicant in writing or electronically. An application may be made for one or more lots, or it may be in the nature of a blanket application for inspection of all designated lots of a given commodity within a particular period, or for all designated lots loaded or received at a specified point.
(a) Application for inspection service shall be made in the English language and may be made orally (in person or by telephone), in writing, or electronically. If an application for inspection is made orally, written confirmation may be required by the inspection service involved.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final notice of U.S. grade standards.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) is revising 18 U.S. grade standards for canned vegetables issued on or before August 3, 1998. AMS is replacing the two-term grading system (dual nomenclature) with a single term to describe each quality level for the grade standards identified in this document. Terms using the letter grade will be retained and the descriptive term will be eliminated. For example, grade standards using the term “U.S. Grade A” or “U.S. Fancy” will be revised to use only the term “U.S. Grade
These grade standards go into effect January 20, 2017.
Standardization Branch, Specialty Crops Inspection Division, Specialty Crops Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 0709-South Building; STOP 0247, Washington, DC 20250.
Dana N. White, at the address above, by phone (202) 720-5870; fax (202) 690-1527; or email:
Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.”
AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The U.S. standards for grades of fruits and vegetables not connected with Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. import requirements no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Specialty Crops Program and are available on the internet at:
These revisions provide a common language for trade and better reflect the current marketing of fruits and vegetables.
On June 17, 2016, AMS published a Proposed Notice in the
The two comments supported the replacement of the two-term grading system with a single term as a positive step forward. USDA stands by its decision to replace the two-term grading system (dual nomenclature) with a single term.
Based on the information gathered, AMS is removing the two-term grading system (dual nomenclature) and making editorial changes to the aforementioned U.S. Standards for Grade. The revision brings these grade standards in line with other recently amended standards and current terminology, and updates the standards to more accurately represent today's marketing practices.
7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.
Office of Inspector General, USDA.
Final rule.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Office of Inspector General (OIG) amends its regulation relating to organization, functions, and delegations of authority. The amendments are necessary to reflect reorganizations within OIG.
Effective December 21, 2016.
Christy Slamowitz, Counsel to the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 441-E, Washington, DC 20250-2308, Telephone: (202) 720-9110.
The regulation on USDA-OIG's organization, functions, and delegations of authority was last published in 1995 (60 FR 52840). Since that time, OIG has had several internal reorganizations. In order to provide the public with current information regarding OIG's organization, functions, and delegations of authority, OIG is amending its regulations.
This rule relates to agency organization and internal agency management. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(A), such rules are not subject to the requirement to provide public notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for public comment. Therefore, notice and comment before the effective date are being waived.
OIG has reviewed this rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. OIG has determined that this rule is non-significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866. Therefore, this rule is not required to be and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
These regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not required.
This rule relates to internal agency organization and management. Therefore, it is exempt from the provisions of Executive Order 12291.
These regulations impose no additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, clearance by OMB is not required.
This rule does not have Federalism implications, as set forth in Executive Order 13132. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
OIG has determined that this rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies).
5 U.S.C. 301, 552; Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C. app.; 7 U.S.C. 2270.
(a) The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C. app. (IG Act), established an Office of Inspector General (OIG) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and transferred to it the functions, powers, and duties of offices referred to in the Department as the “Office of Investigation” and the “Office of Audit,” previously assigned to the OIG created by the Secretary's Memoranda 1915 and 1727, dated March 23, 1977, and October 5, 1977, respectively. Under the IG Act, OIG was established as an independent and objective unit, headed by the Inspector General (IG), who is appointed by the President and reports to and is under the general supervision of the Secretary.
(b) OIG conducts and supervises audits and investigations relating to Department programs and operations; provides leadership and coordination and recommends policies for activities designed to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of, and to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in, such programs and operations; and provides a means for keeping the Secretary of Agriculture and the Congress fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of such programs and operations and the necessity for and progress of corrective action.
(c) The IG has specific duties, responsibilities, and authorities pursuant to the IG Act, including to:
(1) Provide policy direction for, and conduct, supervise, and coordinate
(2) Review existing and proposed legislation and regulations related to USDA programs and operations and make recommendations to the Secretary and the Congress on the impact such laws or regulations will have on the economy and efficiency of program administration or in the prevention and detection of fraud and abuse in USDA programs and operations.
(3) Recommend policies for, and conduct, supervise, or coordinate other activities carried out or financed by USDA for the purpose of promoting economy and efficiency in the administration of, or preventing and detecting fraud and abuse, in USDA programs and operations.
(4) Recommend policies for, and conduct, supervise, or coordinate relationships between, USDA and other Federal, State, and local governmental agencies and nongovernmental entities regarding the promotion of economy and efficiency, prevention of fraud and abuse, or the identification and prosecution of participants in fraud and abuse.
(5) Keep the Secretary and the Congress fully and currently informed about problems, abuses, and deficiencies, and the necessity for and progress of corrective actions in the administration of USDA programs and operations.
(6) Report expeditiously to the Attorney General any matter where there are reasonable grounds to believe there has been a violation of Federal criminal law.
(7) Have access to all records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, or other material available to the Department which relate to programs and operations for which the IG has responsibility.
(8) Make such investigations and reports relating to the administration of USDA programs and operations as are, in the judgment of the IG, necessary or desirable.
(9) Request such information or assistance as may be necessary for carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the IG Act from any Federal, State, or local governmental agency or unit thereof.
(10) Issue subpoenas for the production of information, documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data in any medium (including electronically stored information, as well as any tangible thing) and documentary evidence necessary in the performance of functions assigned by the IG Act, except that procedures other than subpoenas shall be used to obtain documents and information from Federal agencies.
(11) Whenever necessary in the performance of functions assigned by the IG Act, administer to or take from any person an oath, affirmation, or affidavit, which shall have the same force and effect as if administered or taken by or before an officer having a seal.
(12) Have direct and prompt access to the Secretary when necessary for any purpose pertaining to the performance of functions and responsibilities under the IG Act.
(13) Select, appoint, and employ necessary officers and employees in OIG in accordance with laws and regulations governing the civil service, including an Assistant Inspector General for Audit (AIG/A) and an Assistant Inspector General for Investigations (AIG/I).
(14) Obtain services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
(15) Enter into contracts and other arrangements for audits, inspections, studies, analyses, and other services with public agencies and private persons, and make such payments as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the IG Act, to the extent and in such amounts as may be provided in advance by an appropriation act.
(16) Receive and investigate complaints or information from any Department employee concerning the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.
(17) Designate a Whistleblower Protection Ombudsman, who will educate Department employees about prohibitions on retaliation for protected disclosures; and who have made or are contemplating making a protected disclosure about the rights and remedies against retaliation for protected disclosures.
(d) Pursuant to § 2.33 of this title, the Secretary has made the following delegations of authority to the IG:
(1) Advise the Secretary and General officers in the planning, development, and execution of Department policies and programs.
(2) At the request of the Secretary's security office, determine the availability of OIG law enforcement personnel to assist the security office in providing for the personal security of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary.
(3) Serve as liaison official for the Department for all audits of USDA performed by the Government Accountability Office.
(e) The IG, under section 1337 of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, Public Law 97-98, 7 U.S.C. 2270, and pursuant to rules issued by the Secretary in part 1a of this title, has the authority to:
(1) Designate OIG employees who investigate alleged or suspected felony criminal violations of statutes administered by the Secretary of Agriculture or any agency of USDA, when engaged in the performance of official duties to:
(i) Make an arrest without a warrant for any such criminal felony violation if such violation is committed, or if the employee has probable cause to believe that such violation is being committed, in his/her presence;
(ii) Execute and serve a warrant for an arrest, for the search of premises, or the seizure of evidence when issued under authority of the United States upon probable cause to believe that such a violation has been committed; and
(iii) Carry a firearm.
(2) Issue directives and take the actions prescribed by the Secretary's rules.
(a) OIG has a headquarters office in Washington, DC, and regional offices throughout the United States. The headquarters office consists of the immediate office of the IG, which includes three component offices, and four operational units.
(b)
(2) Section 3(g) of the IG Act mandates that each IG shall obtain legal advice from a counsel either reporting directly to the IG or to another IG. Within USDA-OIG, such legal advice is provided by the Counsel to the Inspector General. The Office of Counsel (OC) provides legal advice and representation on issues arising during the course of audit, investigative, and Office of Data Sciences (ODS) activities or on internal administrative and management issues. OC also manages OIG's congressional, media relations, ethics, Freedom of Information Act, and Privacy Act programs; and reviews proposed legislation, regulations, and procedures.
(3) The Director of the Office of Diversity and Conflict Resolution advises OIG leadership on applying the principles of civil rights, equal
(c)
(2) The Assistant Inspector General for Data Sciences carries out OIG's data sciences operations through a headquarters office. OIG officials within ODS perform predictive data analysis, statistical sampling, modeling, computer matching, data mining, and data warehousing of USDA programs and operations in support of OIG audits, investigations, and other activities.
(3) The AIG/I carries out OIG's domestic and foreign investigative operations through a headquarters office and the five regional offices shown in § 2610.3(b). Investigations officials conduct operational and intelligence liaison on investigative matters with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Secret Service, Internal Revenue Service, Interpol, and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement organizations; determine the need for investigative action; conduct investigations; prepare factual reports of investigative findings; refer reports for appropriate administrative or legal action; follow up on agency actions to assure that OIG investigative reports have been properly acted upon; monitor the quality of investigative reports; and coordinate activities with the AIG/A. The staff also conducts special investigations of major programs, operations, and high level officials; can assist the Secretary's security office in providing for the protection of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary; and receives and processes employee complaints concerning possible violations of laws, rules, regulations or mismanagement. The OIG Whistleblower Protection Ombudsman described in § 2610.1(c)(17) is located within the Office of Investigations.
(4) The Assistant Inspector General for Management (AIG/M) manages formulation of OIG policies and procedures; develops, administers and directs comprehensive programs for the management, budget, financial, personnel, systems improvement, and information activities and operations of OIG; and is responsible for OIG IT and information management systems. The staff maintains OIG's directives system, and Departmental Regulations and
(a) Each regional Audit Director is responsible to the IG and to the AIG/A for supervising the performance of all OIG auditing activities relating to the Department's domestic and foreign programs and operations within an assigned geographic area. The addresses and telephone numbers of the three Audit regional offices and the territories served are as follows:
(b) Each regional Special Agent-in-Charge (SAC) is responsible to the IG and to the AIG/I for supervising the performance of all OIG investigative activities relating to the Department's domestic and foreign programs and operations within an assigned geographic area. The addresses and telephone numbers of the five Investigations regional offices and the territories served are as follows:
(a) Heads of USDA agencies will direct requests for audit or investigative service to the AIG/A, AIG/I, Audit Director, SAC, or to other OIG audit or investigation officials responsible for providing service of the type desired in the geographical area where service is desired.
(b) Agency officials or other employees may, at any time, direct to the personal attention of the IG any audit or investigation matter that warrants such attention.
(c) Other persons (
(d) OIG has established several channels for USDA employees and the general public to report fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in USDA programs, or misconduct by a USDA employee. These include a general OIG Hotline, a Bribery/Assault Line, and (for USDA employees) a Whistleblower Ombudsman.
(1) General fraud, waste, and abuse hotline:
(i) File complaint online:
(ii) Telephone: (800) 424-9121, (202) 690-1622, or (202) 690-1202 (Telecommunication Device for the Deaf);
(iii) Facsimile: (202) 690-2474; or
(iv) Write a letter to United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, P.O. Box 23399, Washington, DC 20026.
(2) Bribery/Assault Line: (202) 720-7257 (24 hours a day).
(3) Whistleblower Protection Ombudsman. USDA employees may contact the Ombudsman via email at:
(a) AIGs, Directors, and Counsel listed in § 2610.2, and Audit Directors and SACs listed in § 2610.3, are authorized to take whatever actions are necessary to carry out their assigned functions. This authority may be re-delegated.
(b) The IG reserves the right to establish audit and investigation policies, program, procedures, and standards; to allocate appropriated funds; to determine audit and investigative jurisdiction; and to exercise any of the powers or functions or perform any of the duties referenced in the above delegation.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Final rule.
As part of NCUA's Regulatory Modernization Initiative, the NCUA Board (Board) is finalizing amendments to its regulation governing federal credit union (FCU) occupancy, planning, and disposal of acquired and abandoned premises, and its regulation regarding incidental powers. To provide regulatory relief to FCUs, this final rule eliminates a requirement in the current occupancy rule (formerly known as the fixed assets rule) that an FCU must plan for, and eventually achieve,
The final rule generally retains the current regulatory timeframes for
The final rule also amends the excess capacity provision in NCUA's incidental powers rule to clarify that an FCU may lease or sell excess capacity in its
This rule is effective January 20, 2017.
Justin M. Anderson, Senior Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at (703) 518-6540, or Jacob McCall, Program Officer, Office of Examination and Insurance, at (703) 518-6360.
In April 2016, the Board issued a proposed rule
As noted above, one commenter opposed the proposed rule in its entirety. This commenter asserted that the proposed rule was a significant departure from the Board's previous interpretation of the Federal Credit Union Act (the Act) and could lead to FCUs exceeding their authority.
As stated in the proposed rule, the Board believes the language in Section 107(4) of the Act supports an interpretation that provides FCUs with more flexibility than permitted by the current rule to acquire and hold real property.
While this final rule represents a departure from the Board's previous interpretation of section 107(4) of the Act, the Board believes the rule is both reasonable and consistent with the requirements of the Act and is within the Board's authority. The Board notes that the United States Supreme Court has emphasized that an “initial agency interpretation is not instantly carved in stone,” and “to engage in informed rulemaking, [an agency] must consider varying interpretations and the wisdom of its policy on a continuing basis,” indicating that an agency may change its interpretive position on the statutes it administers.
The Board reiterates, however, its current view that there is no authority in the Act for an FCU to invest in real estate for speculative purposes or to otherwise engage in real estate activities that do not generally support its purpose of providing financial services to its members. The Act is clear that any property acquired or held by an FCU must be “necessary or incidental to its operations.”
The large majority of commenters strongly supported removing the full occupancy requirement. However, two commenters opposed this particular aspect of the proposed rule. Commenters that disagreed with the elimination of the full occupancy requirement expressed concern that FCUs will be more likely to venture into real estate activities that are beyond the scope of credit union operations envisioned by Congress.
In the proposed rule, the Board emphasized that maintaining the requirement that an FCU must partially occupy real property it obtains will reduce the likelihood and opportunity for speculative investments. The Board reaffirms this position and also notes that NCUA will diligently oversee FCUs' activities in this area to ensure that FCUs are not engaging in speculative investments or other real estate activities that are not permitted under the Act. Any FCU in violation of these requirements could be subject to all administrative remedies available to the agency. Therefore, the Board does not believe this final rule will result in FCUs operating beyond the scope of their authority as Congress provided for in the Act.
Under the current rule, an FCU must partially occupy premises acquired for future expansion, within a reasonable period, but no later than six years after the date of acquisition. The proposed rule did not change this requirement, but did modify the definition of “partially occupy” to mean occupation and use, on a full-time basis, of at least fifty percent of the premises by the FCU, or by a combination of the FCU and a CUSO in which the FCU has a controlling interest in accordance with GAAP.
Nearly half of the commenters supported the proposed definition of “partially occupy.” Several of these commenters, however, asked how they are to measure different areas of a building (
In addition, a few commenters supported the proposed definition, but suggested the rule should allow for exceptions to the fifty percent requirement or permit waivers from the partial occupancy requirement. Some of these commenters noted that an FCU meeting the fifty percent occupancy requirement may, at a later time, occupy less than fifty percent for economic or strategic reasons. One commenter stated that waivers should be allowed in such circumstances. Another commenter suggested that satisfaction of the fifty percent occupancy requirement should be “grandfathered” once initially achieved by the FCU. Finally, one commenter said mixed-use developments in urban areas sometimes require shared space and that common areas and other shared fixtures and utilities should count toward the fifty percent partial occupancy requirement.
The final rule retains the waiver provisions for the partial occupancy requirement. FCUs can request a waiver of either the fifty percent requirement or the six-year requirement. The waiver process is designed to allow NCUA to evaluate unique circumstances. For example, certain zoning laws affecting a particular property may support NCUA accepting less than fifty percent occupancy or extending the time period for compliance. The Board believes the waiver process balances providing flexibility to FCUs while maintaining safety and soundness.
A few commenters disagreed with the proposed definition in its entirety. One commenter argued against the fifty percent threshold and stated the rule should allow FCUs broader flexibility to occupy a lesser percentage of their premises. As discussed in more detail above, the Board purposefully included the proposed partial occupancy requirement, among other reasons, as a protection against FCUs potentially engaging in impermissible and speculative real estate investment transactions. Further, the ability to request a waiver from the partial occupancy requirement is, in part, an acknowledgement that there may be circumstances where an FCU could prudently occupy a lesser percentage of the premises and still comply with the Act.
One commenter argued that there is no need for a prescriptive fifty percent occupancy requirement. Another commenter urged that the fifty percent occupancy threshold be removed or, alternatively, that the threshold be reduced to no more than twenty-five percent. A different commenter suggested “partially occupy” should be defined as “less-than-full occupancy that is material and visible actual usage.” The same commenter also suggested that the addition of an absolute prohibition on real estate speculation, analogous to NCUA's regulatory ban on credit union speculation on derivatives, could be adopted as an added safeguard against speculative real estate investing. One commenter noted the fifty percent threshold is somewhat ambiguous with respect to mixed-use properties and larger tracts of land. The same commenter recommended that the final rule revert to an earlier iteration of the regulatory definition, which at one point required only full occupancy of FCU property on a part-time basis.
The Board believes that removing the full occupancy requirement provides FCUs with greater flexibility in managing their real estate, and that it is important to maintain the partial occupancy requirement to ensure safety and soundness. The fifty percent standard provides FCUs with a clear guideline for achieving compliance, and the waiver provisions ensure further flexibility when warranted.
Several commenters asked what is meant by “a controlling interest in a CUSO.” As stated in the proposed rule, NCUA defines controlling interest in a CUSO under GAAP using FASB Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 805. This standard defines controlling interest as “the ability of an entity to direct the policies and management that guide the ongoing activities of another entity so as to increase its benefits and limit its losses from that other entity's activities.”
In addition, two commenters disagreed with the controlling interest requirement for CUSOs entirely. These commenters suggested that an FCU and its CUSO should be able to meet the partial occupancy threshold regardless of the amount of ownership interest the FCU has in the CUSO. One of the commenters further suggested that the types of entities with which an FCU may meet the fifty percent occupancy requirement should be expanded to include credit union industry “partners” or other credit union service providers.
The Board stated in the proposed rule that:
Occupancy of FCU premises with third-party vendors or CUSOs in which the FCU does not maintain a controlling interest will not count towards the fifty percent partial occupancy requirement because these entities operate at the direction of other owners and may not be obligated to primarily support the FCU that acquired the premises or to primarily serve that FCU's members.
Further, the Board notes that this definition will ensure that any property acquired or held by an FCU is primarily utilized for a purpose that is necessary or incidental to its operations, as required by the Act.
Nearly half of the commenters offered input on the current rule's six-year regulatory timeframe for partial occupancy of improved and unimproved property. Of these, several urged that the regulatory timeframe for partial occupancy be eliminated entirely or, alternatively, be extended to ten years.
Three commenters recommended the rule be modified to allow ten years for partial occupancy of unimproved property or raw land. One commenter suggested that the occupancy requirement for unimproved property should be removed entirely. In addition, two commenters suggested that the occupancy waiver provision should be amended to require NCUA to grant waivers upon request unless there are specific safety and soundness concerns.
The Board notes that the final rule will retain the waiver provisions for the partial occupancy requirement, which allows an FCU to request a waiver of the six-year requirement. The Board believes the waiver process, as currently written, provides sufficient flexibility while protecting safety and soundness.
As discussed above, the proposed rule amends the excess capacity provision in NCUA's incidental powers rule to clarify that an FCU may lease or sell excess capacity in its facilities, but it need not anticipate that such excess capacity will be fully occupied by the FCU in the future. However, the sale or lease of excess capacity in equipment or services, including employee-sharing and data processing for third parties, would continue to be limited to circumstances where an FCU reasonably anticipates that such excess capacity will be taken up by the future expansion of services to members.
Four commenters expressed support for this aspect of the proposed rule and one commenter disagreed with it, stating that it would allow credit unions to exceed their authority under the Act. The Board does not believe that anything in this final rule will allow FCUs to exceed their authority under the Act.
Two commenters advocated the creation of an independent appeals process for adjudicating disagreements between NCUA and an FCU concerning the acquisition and use of FCU premises. The creation of such a process was not part of the proposed rule and is, therefore, outside the scope of this final rulemaking. The Board will, however, consider amending NCUA's appeals process in the coming year.
Finally, one commenter suggested that there should be a de minimis exception for fixed assets that are financially immaterial to the FCU's operations. This commenter asserted that such de minimis fixed assets should not be subject to any regulatory occupancy requirements, including the fifty percent rule and the six-year occupancy timeframe. The Board notes that the occupancy rule implements provisions of the Act. The Act does not distinguish certain fixed assets from other fixed assets based on financial materiality. The Board believes this final rule provides significant flexibility and regulatory relief to FCUs and does not include a de minimis exception.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires NCUA to prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of a rule on small entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, however, if the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (defined for purposes of the RFA to include credit unions with assets less than $100 million) and publishes its certification and a short, explanatory statement in the
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency by rule creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or modifies an existing burden.
According to NCUA estimates, approximately 15 FCUs are required to develop a plan for full occupation of premises each year. Accordingly, the reduction to existing paperwork burdens that would result from the final is analyzed below:
15 FCUs × 15 hours = 225 hours reduced burden.
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, NCUA intends to obtain a modification of its OMB Control Number to reflect these changes. NCUA is submitting a copy of this rule to OMB, along with an application for a modification of the OMB Control Number.
The PRA and OMB regulations require that the public be provided an opportunity to comment on the paperwork requirements, including an agency's estimate of the burden of the paperwork requirements. The Board did not receive any comments on the PRA aspects of the rule.
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. NCUA, an independent regulatory agency, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. Because the occupancy and
NCUA has determined that this rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999.
Credit unions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Credit unions, Functions, Implied powers.
For the reasons stated above, NCUA amends 12 CFR parts 701 and 721 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1757, 1765, 1766, 1781, 1782, 1787, 1789; Title V, Pub. L. 109-351, 120 Stat. 1966.
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(b) * * *
(c)
12 U.S.C. 1757(17), 1766 and 1789.
(e)
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Final rule; official commentary.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing a final rule amending the official commentary that interprets the requirements of the Bureau's Regulation C (Home Mortgage Disclosure) to reflect the asset-size exemption threshold for banks, savings associations, and credit unions based on the annual percentage change in the average of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Based on the 0.8 percent increase in the average of the CPI-W for the 12-month period ending in November 2016, the exemption threshold will remain at $44 million. Therefore, banks, savings associations, and credit unions with assets of $44 million or less as of December 31, 2016, are exempt from collecting data in 2017.
This final rule is effective January 1, 2017.
Jaclyn Maier, Counsel, Office of Regulations, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, at (202) 435-7700.
The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (HMDA) (12 U.S.C. 2801-2810) requires most mortgage lenders located in metropolitan areas to collect data about their housing related lending activity. Annually, lenders must report their data to the appropriate Federal agencies and make the data available to
Prior to 1997, HMDA exempted certain depository institutions as defined in HMDA (
The definition of “financial institution” in § 1003.2 provides that the Bureau will adjust the asset threshold based on the year-to-year change in the average of the CPI-W, not seasonally adjusted, for each 12-month period ending in November, rounded to the nearest $1 million. For 2016, the threshold was $44 million. During the 12-month period ending in November 2016, the average of the CPI-W increased by 0.8 percent. This increase results in no change to the asset-size threshold when rounded to the nearest $1 million. Thus, the exemption threshold will remain at $44 million. Therefore, banks, savings associations, and credit unions with assets of $44 million or less as of December 31, 2016, are exempt from collecting data in 2017. An institution's exemption from collecting data in 2017 does not affect its responsibility to report data it was required to collect in 2016.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Bureau finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Pursuant to this final rule, comment 2(Financial institution)-2 in Regulation C, supplement I, is amended to update the exemption threshold. The amendment in this final rule is technical and non-discretionary, and it merely applies the formula established by Regulation C for determining any adjustments to the exemption threshold. For these reasons, the Bureau has determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, the amendment is adopted in final form.
Section 553(d) of the APA generally requires publication of a final rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). At a minimum, the Bureau believes the amendments fall under the third exception to section 553(d). The Bureau finds that there is good cause to make the amendments effective on January 1, 2017. The amendment in this final rule is technical and non-discretionary, and it applies the method previously established in the agency's regulations for determining adjustments to the threshold.
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).
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR 1320), the agency reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.
Banking, Banks, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau amends Regulation C, 12 CFR part 1003, as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 2803, 2804, 2805, 5512, 5581.
Financial institution.
2.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Final rule; official interpretation.
The Bureau is amending the official commentary that interprets the requirements of the Bureau's Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) to reflect a change in the asset-size threshold for certain creditors to qualify for an exemption to the requirement to establish an escrow account for a higher-priced mortgage loan based on the annual percentage change in the average of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the 12-month period ending in November. The exemption threshold is adjusted to increase to $2.069 billion from $2.052 billion. The adjustment is based on the .8 percent increase in the average of the CPI-W for the 12-month period ending in November 2016. Therefore, creditors with assets of less than $2.069 billion (including assets of certain affiliates) as of December 31, 2016, are exempt, if other requirements of Regulation Z also are met, from establishing escrow accounts for higher-priced mortgage loans in 2017. This asset limit will also apply during a grace period, in certain circumstances, with respect to transactions with applications received before April 1 of 2018. The adjustment to the escrows exemption asset-size threshold will also increase a similar threshold for small-creditor portfolio and balloon-payment qualified mortgages. Balloon-payment qualified
This final rule is effective January 1, 2017.
Jaclyn Maier, Counsel, Office of Regulations, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, at (202) 435-7700.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) amended TILA to add section 129D(a), which contains a general requirement that an escrow account be established by a creditor to pay for property taxes and insurance premiums for certain first-lien higher-priced mortgage loan transactions. TILA section 129D also generally permits an exemption from the higher-priced mortgage loan escrow requirement for a creditor that meets certain requirements, including any asset-size threshold the Bureau may establish.
In the 2013 Escrows Final Rule,
During the 12-month period ending in November 2016, the average of the CPI-W increased by .8 percent. As a result, the exemption threshold is increased to $2.069 billion for 2017. Thus, if the creditor's assets together with the assets of its affiliates that regularly extended first-lien covered transactions during calendar year 2016 are less than $2.069 billion on December 31, 2016, and it meets the other requirements of § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii), it will be exempt in 2017 from the escrow-accounts requirement for higher-priced mortgage loans and will also be exempt from the escrow-accounts requirement for higher-priced mortgage loans for purposes of any loan consummated in 2018 for which the application was received before April 1, 2018. The adjustment to the escrows exemption asset-size threshold will also increase the threshold for small-creditor portfolio and balloon-payment qualified mortgages under Regulation Z. The requirements for small-creditor portfolio qualified mortgages at § 1026.43(e)(5)(i)(D) reference the asset threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(C). Likewise, the requirements for balloon-payment qualified mortgages at § 1026.43(f)(1)(vi) reference the asset threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(C). Under § 1026.32(d)(1)(ii)(C), balloon-payment qualified mortgages that satisfy all applicable criteria in § 1026.43(f)(1)(i) through (vi) and (f)(2), including being made by creditors that have (together with certain affiliates) total assets below the threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(C), are also excepted from the prohibition on balloon payments for high-cost mortgages.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Bureau finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Pursuant to this final rule, comment 35(b)(2)(iii)-1 in Regulation Z is amended to update the exemption threshold. The amendment in this final rule is technical and merely applies the formula previously established in Regulation Z for determining any adjustments to the exemption threshold. For these reasons, the Bureau has determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, the amendment is adopted in final form.
Section 553(d) of the APA generally requires publication of a final rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). At a minimum, the Bureau believes the amendments fall under the third exception to section 553(d). The Bureau finds that there is good cause to make the amendments effective on January 1, 2017. The amendment in this notice is technical and applies the method previously established in the agency's regulations for automatic adjustments to the threshold.
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).
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR 1320), the agency reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.
Advertising, Appraisal, Appraiser, Banking, Banks, Consumer protection, Credit, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Truth in lending.
For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau amends Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 2601, 2603-2605, 2607, 2609, 2617, 3353, 5511, 5512, 5532, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1601
Section 1026.35—Requirements for Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans
35(b)(2) Exemptions.
Paragraph 35(b)(2)(iii).
1. * * *
iii. * * *
E. Under § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(C), the $2,000,000,000 asset threshold adjusts automatically each year based on the year-to-year change in the average of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, not seasonally adjusted, for each 12-month period ending in November, with rounding to the nearest million dollars. The Bureau will publish notice of the asset threshold each year by amending this comment. For calendar year 2017, the asset threshold is $2,069,000,000. A creditor that together with the assets of its affiliates that regularly extended first-lien covered transactions during calendar year 2016 has total assets of less than $2,069,000,000 on December 31, 2016, satisfies this criterion for purposes of any loan consummated in 2017 and for purposes of any loan consummated in 2018 for which the application was received before April 1, 2018. For historical purposes:
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Correcting amendments.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
Effective December 21, 2016.
Dr. Jorge Laboy-Bruno at (202) 205-6618 or
On January 26, 2016, SBA published a final rule implementing changes to the size standards for a number of industries in NAICS Sectors 31-33, Manufacturing (81 FR 4469). As discussed in the preamble of the rule, SBA intended to amend paragraphs (a) and (b) of Footnote 5 to the table of size standards relating to NAICS 326211, Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading), by replacing the former Census classification codes 30111 and 30112 with the new Census Product Classification Codes 3262111 and 3262113. However, the amended text inadvertently omitted the new Census Product Classification code 3262111. This action corrects that omission, but does not affect the 1,500-employee small business size standard for NAICS 326211.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Government property, Grant programs—business, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
Accordingly, 13 CFR part 121 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 662, and 694a(9).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model SAAB 2000 airplanes. This AD was prompted by an occurrence that was reported of rudder pedal restriction on a SAAB Model 2000 airplane with the large potable water system (LPWS) installed, equipped with in-line heaters. This AD requires installation of shrinkable tubes on the water piping of the basic potable water system (BPWS). We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 25, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 25, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112 ; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model SAAB 2000 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 2016-0013, dated January 14, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model SAAB 2000 airplanes. The MCAI states:
An occurrence was reported of rudder pedal restriction on a SAAB 2000 aeroplane with the Large Potable Water System (LPWS) installed, equipped with in-line heaters (options 38:201 and 38:201-1). Subsequent investigation showed that this event was the result of a ruptured in-line heater attachment, causing water leakage at the inlet tubing for the in-line heater in the lower part of the forward fuselage (Zone 116). In flight, the water froze on the rudder control mechanism, causing the rudder pedal restriction. Analysis after the reported event indicates that the pitch control mechanism (including pitch disconnect/spring unit) may also be frozen, which would prevent disconnection and normal pitch control.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in further occurrences of water spray, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued Emergency AD 2013-0172-E, to require deactivation of the LPWS. Following that, EASA AD 2013-0172R1 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-15-04, Amendment 39-17906 (79 FR 45337, August 5, 2014)] introduced a temporary alternative procedure for filling, reactivation and operation of the LPWS.
Finally, EASA AD 2014-0255 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2016-12-05, Amendment 39-18554 (81 FR 38903, June 15, 2016) was issued, superseding EASA AD 2013-0172R1, to require a modification allowing reactivating of the system and the use of regular filling procedures.
Although the Basic Potable Water System (BPWS) does not contain an in-line heater, which was the major risk contributor and the actual cause of the previous leakage events in the LPWS, a Zonal Safety Analysis performed by SAAB concluded that the implementation of spray shield (tube/hose) for the water piping is necessary for the BPWS as well, to protect the flight controls and electrical equipment from water spray in case of a failed pipe or coupling during water filling on ground.
Consequently SAAB developed a modification and issued Service Bulletin (SB) 2000-38-012 to provide modification instructions to install shrinkable tubes as spray shields.
For reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires installation of shrinkable tubes on the water piping of the BPWS.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Saab has issued Service Bulletin 2000-38-012, dated August 20, 2015. The service information describes how to install shrinkable tubes on the water piping of the BPWS. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 7 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it takes about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $3,650 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $29,120 or $4,160 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective January 25, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (formerly known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Model SAAB 2000 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 017, 019 through 021 inclusive, 027 through 028 inclusive, 030, 034, 040, 050, and 052.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 38, Water/waste.
This AD was prompted by an occurrence that was reported of rudder pedal restriction on a SAAB Model 2000 airplane with the large potable water system installed, equipped with in-line heaters. We are issuing this AD to prevent water spray in case of a failed pipe or coupling during water filling on the ground. This condition, if not corrected, could freeze parts of the flight control system, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, install shrinkable tubes on the water piping of the BPWS, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SAAB Service Bulletin 2000-38-012, dated August 20, 2015.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0013, dated January 14, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) SAAB Service Bulletin 2000-38-012, dated August 20, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracking found in the splice plates, hinge fittings, terminal fittings, the upper skin of the outboard
This AD is effective January 25, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 25, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6428; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2006-10-16, Amendment 39-14600 (71 FR 28570, May 17, 2006) (“AD 2006-10-16”). AD 2006-10-16 applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP 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.
Atlas Airlines, United Airlines, and The Boeing Company requested that we clarify the inspection required by the proposed AD. Atlas Airlines stated that the “Proposed AD Requirements” paragraph of the NPRM states that the proposed AD would retain all the requirements of AD 2006-10-16. Atlas Airlines also stated that paragraph (f) of AD 2006-10-16 is not included in the proposed AD and noted that paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD identifies only Groups 7 through 9 as the applicable groups for the Zone A inspections. Atlas Airlines asked for clarification of the Zone A inspections.
Boeing noted that AD 2006-10-16 includes Zone C inspections as specified in Part 5 of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2003, and included Zone A inspections for Groups 1 through 6. Boeing noted that these inspections have not been removed by Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015. Boeing also requested that we revise the proposed AD to address the Zone C inspections in Part 5 of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, and the Zone A inspections for Groups 1 through 6.
United Airlines disagreed with not restating the requirements of AD 2006-10-16. United Airlines stated that operators might miss that Zone A inspections and Zone C, Part 5, inspections required by AD 2006-10-16 are intended to be mandated. United Airlines noted that although the preamble of the NPRM stated that all inspections of AD 2006-10-16 are retained, paragraph (g) of the proposed AD only specifies new requirements and does not include certain Zone A inspections and Zone C, Part 5, inspections.
We agree that clarification is necessary. As stated in the preamble to the NPRM, we intended to retain all requirements of AD 2006-10-16. However, the actions specified in the proposed AD do not include the inspections referred to by the commenters. We have determined that instead of including those actions in this final rule, we will issue this action as a stand-alone AD. Thus, AD 2006-10-16 is not superseded, making it clear that all actions in AD 2006-10-16 continue to be required. In addition, we have revised this AD to specify when accomplishing certain actions in this AD terminates actions specified in AD 2006-10-16. We have made the following changes:
• Revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to specify that accomplishing a Zone B inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g) of AD 2006-10-16 for the inspected area only.
• Revised paragraph (g)(2) of this AD to specify that accomplishing a Zone B inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD terminates the inspections required by paragraph (i) of AD 2006-10-16 for the inspected area only.
• Revised paragraph (g)(3) of this AD to specify that accomplishing Zone A and Zone B inspections required by
• Added paragraph (i)(1)(iii) to this AD to clarify that accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD terminates inspections required by paragraph (g) of AD 2006-10-16 for Zone B, as specified in Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, for the modified area only.
• Added paragraph (i)(1)(iv) to this AD to clarify that accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (i) of this AD terminates inspections required by paragraph (k) of AD 2006-10-16 for Zone C, as specified in Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, for the modified area only.
• Added paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this AD to clarify that accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (k) of AD 2006-10-16 for Zone C, as specified in Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, for the inspected area only.
• Added paragraph (i)(3)(ii) of this AD to clarify that accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (i) of AD 2006-10-16 for Zone B, as specified in Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, for the modified area only.
Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (i)(2) of the proposed AD to clarify which Zone C inspections are terminated. Boeing noted that paragraph (i)(2) of the proposed AD specifies that the actions terminate Zone C inspections specified in Part 6 of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, and noted that Zone C inspections in Part 5 of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, are also terminated.
We agree to clarify the terminating action for the Zone C inspections, and have revised paragraph (i)(2) of this AD accordingly.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the change described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015. The service information describes procedures for accomplishing Zone A, Zone B, and Zone C inspections for cracking of the upper skin and upper rear spar chord of the outboard and center sections of the horizontal stabilizer, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. The service information also describes procedures for a magnetic inspection to determine the type of fasteners, ultrasonic inspections for cracking and fractures of affected fasteners, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. 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 116 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate 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 January 25, 2017.
This AD affects AD 2006-10-16, Amendment 39-14600 (71 FR 28570, May 17, 2006) (“AD 2006-10-16”).
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes; certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking found in the splice plates, hinge fittings, terminal fittings, the upper skin of the outboard and center sections, upper chord, and rear spar webs before reaching the inspection interval specified in AD 2006-10-16. Cracked and fractured Maraging steel fasteners were also found. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct this cracking, which could lead to reduced structural capability of the outboard and center sections of the horizontal stabilizer and could result in loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, except as required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD: Do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), and (g)(4) of this AD, and all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the applicable part of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), and (g)(4) of this AD at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015.
(1) For Group 1 through 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015: Do non-destructive test (NDT) inspections (ultrasonic, high frequency eddy current, and low frequency eddy current inspections) or open-hole NDT inspections (high frequency eddy current inspections) of Zone B for cracking, in accordance with Part 3 or Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, as applicable. Accomplishing a Zone B inspection required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g) of AD 2006-10-16 for the inspected area only.
(2) For Group 4 through 6 airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015: Do open-hole NDT inspections (high frequency eddy current inspections) of Zone B for cracking, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015. Accomplishing a Zone B inspection required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraph (i) of AD 2006-10-16 for the inspected area only.
(3) For Group 7 through 9 airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015: Do inspections of Zone A (detailed or high frequency eddy current inspections) and Zone B (open-hole high frequency eddy current inspections) for cracking, in accordance with Part 1, Part 2, or Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, as applicable. Accomplishing Zone A and Zone B inspections required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraphs (f), (i), and (l) of AD 2006-10-16 for the inspected area only.
(4) For Group 1 through 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015: Do an inspection of Zone C Maraging or H-11 steel fasteners to determine whether fasteners are magnetic, in accordance with Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015.
(1) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 2 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) The Condition column of Table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, refers to airplanes with certain total flight cycles and total flight hours. This AD, however, applies to the
(3) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
(1) For Group 1 through 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015: Accomplishing the Zone B modification, including all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, specified in Part 7 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, terminates the repetitive inspections specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (i)(1)(iv) of this AD for the modified area only.
(i) Inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD for Zone B, as specified in Part 3 and Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015.
(ii) Inspections required by paragraph (g)(4) of this AD for Zone C, as specified in Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015.
(iii) Inspections required by paragraph (g) of AD 2006-10-16 for Zone B, as specified in Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015.
(iv) Inspections required by paragraph (k) of AD 2006-10-16 for Zone C, as specified in Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015.
(2) For Group 1 through 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015: Accomplishing the Zone B open-hole NDT inspection, repairing any cracking as applicable, and replacing fasteners as specified in Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, terminates the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD for the inspected area only.
(i) The inspections required by paragraph (g)(4) of this AD for Zone C, as specified in Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015.
(ii) The repetitive inspections required by paragraph (k) of AD 2006-10-16 for Zone C, as specified in Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015.
(3) For Group 4 through 9 airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015: Accomplishing the Zone B modification, including all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, specified in Part 7 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, terminates the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and (i)(3)(ii) of this AD for the modified area only.
(i) The repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(2) or (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable, only for Zone B, as specified in Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015.
(ii) The repetitive inspections required by paragraph (i) of AD 2006-10-16 for Zone B, as specified in Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015: Do the applicable inspections specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD, and all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with Part 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspections at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015.
(1) For Group 1 through 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, on which the Zone B modification specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD is done: Do non-destructive test (NDT) inspections (ultrasonic, high frequency eddy current, and low frequency eddy current inspections) or open-hole NDT inspections (high frequency eddy current inspections) of Zone B for cracking.
(2) For Group 4 through 9 airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, on which the Zone B modification specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD is done: Do open-hole NDT inspections (high frequency eddy current inspections) of Zone B for cracking.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any Maraging or H-11 steel fasteners in the locations specified in this AD. Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, specifies to install H-11 bolts (kept fasteners), this AD requires installation of Inconel bolts.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved for AD 2006-10-16, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD, except for approved AMOCs that allow installation of Maraging or H-11 steel fasteners.
For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6428; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(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 Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking in a rear spar lower cap of the horizontal stabilizer. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the rear spar lower caps of the horizontal stabilizer, post-modification and post-repair inspections, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also provides an optional terminating fatigue life enhancement modification. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 25, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 25, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Haytham Alaidy, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5224; 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 DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. Boeing supported the NPRM.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-55A072, dated April 8, 2016. The service information describes procedures for doing inspections for cracking of the rear spar lower caps of the horizontal stabilizer, post-modification and post-repair inspections, 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 395 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions that require repair using a method specified in paragraph (k) of 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 January 25, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes; certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.
This AD was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking in a Model MD-88 rear spar lower cap of the horizontal stabilizer. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the rear spar lower caps of the horizontal stabilizer, which, paired with cracking in adjacent areas, could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-55A072, dated April 8, 2016: Do an open hole high frequency eddy current inspection (HFEC) or surface HFEC inspection for cracking of the rear spar lower caps of the horizontal stabilizer, and do all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-55A072, dated April 8, 2016, except as specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-55A072, dated April 8, 2016, until accomplishment of the actions provided by paragraph (h) of this AD.
Accomplishment of the fatigue life enhancement modification in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-55A072, dated April 8, 2016, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-55A072, dated April 8, 2016, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-55A072, dated April 8, 2016, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight,
For airplanes on which any modification or repair specified in (g) or (h) of this AD has been done: At the applicable time and intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-55A072, dated April 8, 2016, do all applicable post-modification and post-repair inspections and all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-55A072, dated April 8, 2016; except as specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. All applicable corrective actions must be done before further flight.
(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 (i)(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) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or sub-step is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or sub-step. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining 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 Haytham Alaidy, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5224; 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 MD80-55A072, dated April 8, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; Internet:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of two cases where the main landing gear (MLG) failed to fully extend; it was determined that interference between the MLG door and the MLG fairing seal prevented the MLG door from opening fully. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the MLG fairing, fairing seal, door, and adjacent structures; and replacement or repair of affected parts and fasteners, or removal of the MLG door, if necessary. This AD also requires installation of a safety guide in the MLG fairing and an increase of the spacing between the MLG door and the fairing, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 25, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 25, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer,
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-30, dated December 30, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:
Two cases of main landing gear (MLG) failure to fully extend have been reported on model CL-600-2C10/-2D15/-2D24 aeroplanes. Investigation determined that interference between the MLG door and the MLG fairing seal prevented the MLG door from opening.
Although model CL-600-2E25 aeroplanes feature new MLG door design, similar interference between the MLG door and the MLG fairing seal could exist on aeroplanes listed in the Applicability section of this [Canadian] AD. An MLG failing to extend may result in an unsafe asymmetric landing configuration.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the repetitive inspection and rectification [which could include replacement or repair of affected parts and fasteners, or removal of the door, if necessary], as required, of the MLG fairing and seal, MLG door, and adjacent structures, until the mandatory terminating action is completed.
The terminating action includes installation of a safety guide in the MLG fairing and an increase of the spacing between the MLG door and the fairing, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013. The service information describes procedures for detailed inspections of the MLG fairing, fairing seal, door, and adjacent structures; replacement or repair of affected parts and fasteners and removal of the MLG door.
We also reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-049, dated May 26, 2015. The service information describes procedures for installation of a safety guide in the MLG fairing and an increase of the spacing between the MLG door and the fairing.
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 40 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data on the costs for the on-condition repairs that will be required based on the results of the inspection.
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements/removals that will be required based on the results of the required inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements/removals:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective January 25, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 19002 through 19041 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by reports of two cases where the main landing gear (MLG) failed to fully extend; it was determined that interference between the MLG door and the MLG fairing seal prevented the MLG door from opening fully. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct interference between the MLG door and the MLG fairing seal. Such interference could result in a MLG failing to fully extend, which could cause an unsafe asymmetric landing configuration.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 660 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, conduct a detailed inspection for damage to the MLG fairing, fairing seal, door, and adjacent structures, and for missing parts and fasteners, in accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 660 flight hours until the installation required by paragraph (m) of this AD is done.
If damage to the MLG fairing seal is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, replace the seal, in accordance with Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013; or remove the MLG door, in accordance with Part C of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013.
If damage to the MLG door is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO); or remove the MLG door, in accordance with Part C of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013.
If damage to the MLG fairing is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.
If damage to the adjacent structure is found or if any part or fastener is found missing or damaged during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD.
(1) Replace missing or damaged parts and fasteners, in accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instruction of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013, except where Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013, specifies to contact Bombardier, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.
(2) Repair damaged structure using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.
For any MLG door that has been removed as specified in paragraph (h) or (i) of this AD: Reinstallation of the door, if accomplished, must be done in accordance with Part D of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013. Before further flight after any reinstallation, the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD must be done and the inspection must be repeated thereafter at the times specified in paragraph (g) of this AD until the installation required by paragraph (m) of this AD is done.
Except as required by paragraph (n) of this AD: Within 6,600 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, install a safety guide on the MLG fairing and increase the spacing between the MLG door and the fairing, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-049, dated May 26, 2015. Accomplishment of these actions terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (l) of this AD.
If the MLG door has been removed in accordance with Part C of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-30, dated December 30, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013.
(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-049, dated May 26, 2015.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Notice of intent.
The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is issuing this notice of intent to temporarily schedule six synthetic cannabinoids: methyl 2-(1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1
December 21, 2016.
Michael J. Lewis, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
Any final order will be published in the
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.
Under the CSA, every controlled substance is classified into one of five schedules based upon its potential for abuse, its currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the degree of dependence the drug or other substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of all scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308.
Section 201 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811, provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if she
Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 355. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1); 21 CFR part 1308. The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.
Section 201(h)(4) of the CSA 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), requires the Administrator to notify the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of any intention to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA.
To find that placing a substance temporarily into schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the Administrator is required to consider three of the eight factors set forth in 21 U.S.C. 811(c): The substance's history and current pattern of abuse; the scope, duration and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to the public health. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3). Consideration of these factors includes actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3).
A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed in schedule I. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1).
Available data and information for 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA indicate that these synthetic cannabinoids (SCs) have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.
SCs are substances synthesized in laboratories that mimic the biological effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. It is believed that SCs were first introduced on the designer drug market in several European countries as “herbal incense” before the initial encounter in the United States by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in November 2008. From 2009 to the present, misuse and abuse of SCs has increased in the United States with law enforcement encounters describing SCs applied onto plant material and in designer drug products intended for human consumption. It has been demonstrated that the substances and the associated designer drug products are abused for their psychoactive properties. With many generations of SCs having been encountered since 2009, 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA are some of the latest, and the abuse of these substances is negatively impacting communities.
As observed by the DEA and CBP, SCs originate from foreign sources, such as China. Bulk powder substances are smuggled via common carrier into the United States and find their way to clandestine designer drug product manufacturing operations located in residential neighborhoods, garages, warehouses, and other similar destinations throughout the country. According to online discussion boards and law enforcement encounters, applying by spraying or mixing the SCs with plant material provides a vehicle for the most common route of administration—smoking (using a pipe, a water pipe, or rolling the drug-laced plant material in cigarette papers).
5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA, and MDMB-FUBINACA have no accepted medical use in the United States. Use of these specific SCs has been reported to result in adverse effects in humans including deaths (see 3-Factor document in “Supporting and Related Material” section). Use of other SCs has resulted in signs of addiction and withdrawal, and based on the similar pharmacological profile of these six substances, it is believed that there will be similar observed adverse effects.
5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA are SCs that have pharmacological effects similar to the schedule I hallucinogen delta-Δ-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and temporarily and permanently controlled schedule I synthetic cannabinoid substances. In addition, the misuse of 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and/or MDMB-FUBINACA have been associated with either overdoses requiring emergency medical intervention or death (see factor 6). With no approved medical use and limited safety or toxicological information, 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA have emerged on the designer drug market, and the abuse of these substances for their psychoactive properties is concerning. The DEA's analysis is available in its entirety under “Supporting and Related Material” of the public docket for this action at
Synthetic cannabinoids have been developed over the last 30 years as tools for investigating the endocannabinoid system (
Research and clinical reports have demonstrated that SCs are applied onto plant material so that the material may be smoked as users attempt to obtain a euphoric and/or psychoactive “high,” believed to be similar to marijuana. Data gathered from published studies, supplemented by discussions on Internet discussion Web sites, demonstrate that these products are being abused mainly by smoking for their psychoactive properties. The adulterated products are marketed as “legal” alternatives to marijuana. In recent overdoses, 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA have been shown to be applied onto plant material, similar to the SCs that have been previously available.
Law enforcement personnel have encountered various application methods including buckets or cement mixers in which plant material and one or more SCs (including 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and/or MDMB-FUBINACA) are mixed together, as well as large areas where the plant material is spread out so that a dissolved SC mixture can be applied directly. Once mixed, the SC plant material is then allowed to dry before manufacturers package the product for distribution, ignoring any control mechanisms to prevent contamination or to ensure a consistent, uniform concentration of the substance in each package. Adverse health consequences may also occur from directly ingesting the substance(s) during the manufacturing process. 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA, similar to other SCs, have been encountered in form of dried leaves or herbal blends.
The designer drug products laced with SCs, including 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA, are often sold under the guise of “herbal incense” or “potpourri,” use various product names, and are routinely labeled “not for human consumption.” Additionally, these products are marketed as a “legal high” or “legal alternative to marijuana” and are readily available over the Internet, in head shops, or sold in convenience stores. There is an incorrect assumption that these products are safe, that they are a synthetic form of marijuana, and that labeling these products as “not for human consumption” is a legal defense to criminal prosecution.
A major concern, as reiterated by public health officials and medical professionals, is the targeting and direct marketing of SCs and SC-containing products to adolescents and youth. This is supported by law enforcement encounters and reports from emergency departments; however, all age groups have been reported by media as abusing these substances and related products. Individuals, including minors, are purchasing SCs from Internet Web sites, gas stations, convenience stores, and head shops.
SCs, including 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA, continue to be encountered on the illicit market regardless of scheduling actions that attempt to safeguard the public from the adverse effects and safety issues associated with these substances. Numerous substances are encountered each month, differing only by small modifications intended to avoid prosecution while maintaining the pharmacological effects. Law enforcement and health care professionals continue to report abuse of these substances and their associated products.
As described by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), many substances being encountered in the illicit market, specifically SCs, have been available for years but have reentered the marketplace due to a renewed popularity.
The threat of serious injury to the individual following the ingestion of 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA and other SCs persists. Numerous calls have been received by poison centers regarding the abuse of products potentially laced with SCs that have resulted in visits to emergency departments. Law enforcement continues to encounter novel SCs on the illicit market, including 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA (see factor 5 in “Supporting and Related Material”).
The following information details information obtained through NFLIS
5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA have all been identified in overdose and/or cases involving death attributed to their abuse. Adverse health effects reported from these incidents involving 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and/or MDMB-FUBINACA have included: Nausea, persistent vomiting, agitation, altered mental status, seizures, convulsions, loss of consciousness and/or cardio toxicity. Large clusters of overdoses requiring medical care have been reported involving 5F-AMB, MDMB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and 5F-ADB. Reported deaths involving these SCs have included 5F-ADB (8); 5F-AMB (6); 5F-APINACA (1); ADB-FUBINACA (2); MDMB-CHMICA (4), European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has reported an additional 12 deaths involving MDMB-CHMICA; and MDMB-FUBINACA (1) (see factor 6 in “Supporting and Related Material”).
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811 (h)(3), based on the available data and information summarized above, the continued uncontrolled manufacture, distribution, importation, exportation, conduct of research and chemical analysis, possession, and abuse of 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA pose an imminent hazard to the public safety. The DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for these substances in the United States. A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), may only be placed in schedule I. Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Available data and information for 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA indicate that these SCs have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. As required by section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Administrator, through a letter dated April 22, 2016, notified the Assistant Secretary of the DEA's intention to temporarily place these six substances in schedule I.
This notice of intent initiates a temporary scheduling action and provides the 30-day notice pursuant to section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h). In accordance with the provisions of section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), the Administrator considered available data and information, herein sets forth the grounds for his determination that it is necessary to temporarily schedule methyl 2-(1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1
Because the Administrator hereby finds that it is necessary to temporarily place these SCs into schedule I to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, any subsequent final order temporarily scheduling these substances will be effective on the date of publication in the
The CSA sets forth specific criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Regular scheduling actions in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a) are subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing” conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. 21 U.S.C. 811. The regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking affords interested parties with appropriate process and the government with any additional relevant information needed to make a determination. Final decisions that conclude the regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking are subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 877. Temporary scheduling orders are not subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(6).
Section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), provides for an expedited temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. As provided in this subsection, the Attorney General may, by order, schedule a substance in schedule I on a temporary basis. Such an order may not be issued before the expiration of 30 days from (1) the publication of a notice in the
Inasmuch as section 201(h) of the CSA directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this notice of intent. In the alternative, even assuming that this notice of intent might be subject to section 553 of the APA, the Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice and comment requirements of section 553, as any further delays in the process for issuance of temporary scheduling orders would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.
Although the DEA believes this notice of intent to issue a temporary scheduling order is not subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the APA, the DEA notes
Further, the DEA believes that this temporary scheduling action is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, the DEA is not required by section 553 of the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.
Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, the DEA amends 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the asset allocation regulation for valuation dates in the first quarter of 2017. The interest assumptions are used for valuing benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC. As discussed below, PBGC has published a separate final rule document dealing with interest assumptions under its regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans for January 2017.
Effective January 1, 2017.
Deborah C. Murphy (
PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's Web site (
The interest assumptions in Appendix B to Part 4044 are used to value benefits for allocation purposes under ERISA section 4044. Assumptions under the asset allocation regulation are updated quarterly and are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. This final rule updates the asset allocation interest assumptions for the first quarter (January through March) of 2017.
The first quarter 2017 interest assumptions under the allocation regulation will be 1.87 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 2.37 percent thereafter. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for the fourth quarter of 2016, these interest assumptions represent no change in the select period (the period during which the select rate (the initial rate) applies), a decrease of 0.11 percent in the select rate, and a decrease of 0.30 percent in the ultimate rate (the final rate).
PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.
Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation of benefits under plans with valuation dates during the first quarter of 2017, PBGC finds that good cause exists for
PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions.
In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4044 is amended as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362.
Signed in Washington, DC.
National Park Service, Interior.
Final rule.
The National Park Service (NPS) amends its special regulation for off-road vehicle (ORV) use at Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina, to revise the times that certain beaches open to ORV use in the morning, to extend the dates that certain seasonal ORV routes are open in the fall and spring, and to modify the size and location of certain vehicle-free areas. The NPS was required to consider these changes by section 3057 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. The NPS also amends this special regulation to allow the Superintendent to issue ORV permits for different lengths of time than are currently allowed, and to remove an ORV route designation on Ocracoke Island to allow vehicle access to a soundside area without the requirement of an ORV permit.
This rule is effective on January 20, 2017.
Superintendent, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, 1401 National Park Drive, Manteo, North Carolina 27954. Phone 252-475-9032.
Situated along the Outer Banks of North Carolina, Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Seashore or park) was authorized by Congress in 1937 and established in 1953 as the nation's first national seashore. Consisting of more than thirty thousand acres distributed along approximately 67 miles of shoreline, the Seashore is part of a dynamic barrier island system.
The Seashore contains important wildlife habitat created by dynamic environmental processes. Several species listed under the Endangered Species Act, including the piping plover, rufa subspecies of the red knot, and five species of sea turtles, are found within the park. The Seashore also serves as a popular recreation destination where users participate in a variety of activities.
In the NPS Organic Act (54 U.S.C. 100101), Congress granted the NPS broad authority to regulate the use of areas under its jurisdiction. The Organic Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the NPS, to “prescribe such regulations as the Secretary considers necessary or proper for the use and management of [National Park] System units.” 54 U.S.C. 100751(a).
Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands, was issued in 1972 in response to the widespread and rapidly increasing off-road driving on public lands “often for legitimate purposes but also in frequent conflict with wise land and resource management practices, environmental values, and other types of recreational activity.” Executive Order 11644 was amended by Executive Order 11989 in 1977, and together they are jointly referred to in this rule as the “E.O.” The E.O. requires Federal agencies that allow motorized vehicle use in off-road areas to designate specific areas and routes on public lands where the use of motorized vehicles may be permitted and to minimize user conflicts and resource impacts.
The NPS regulation at 36 CFR 4.10(b) implements the E.O. and requires that routes and areas designated for ORV use be promulgated as special regulations and that the designation of routes and areas must comply with 36 CFR 1.5 and E.O. 11644. It also states that ORV routes and areas may be designated only in national recreation areas, national seashores, national lakeshores, and national preserves. This rule is consistent with these authorities and with Section 8.2.3.1 (Motorized Off-road Vehicle Use) of NPS Management Policies 2006, available at:
In 2010, the NPS completed the Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (ORV
On December 19, 2014, the President signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (2014 Act). Section 3057 of the 2014 Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to consider three specific changes to the 2012 Final Rule regarding:
• Morning opening times of beaches that are closed to ORV use at night;
• Extending the dates for seasonal ORV routes; and
• The size and location of vehicle-free areas (VFAs).
On February 17, 2016, the NPS published the Consideration of Modifications to the Final Rule for Off-Road Vehicle Management Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA evaluated:
• The times that beach routes open to ORV use in the mornings;
• Extending the dates that seasonal ORV routes are open in the fall and spring; and
• Modifying the size and location of VFAs.
The EA also considered:
• Issuing ORV permits for different lengths of time;
• Revising some ORV route designations; and
• Providing access improvements for soundside locations on Ocracoke Island.
The EA, which contains a full description of the purpose and need for taking action, scoping, the alternatives considered, maps and the environmental impacts associated with the project, may be viewed on the NPS planning Web site at
The NPS published a proposed rule on August 22, 2016 (81 FR 56550). The NPS accepted comments through the mail, hand delivery, and the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
This rule implements the selected action in the FONSI and amends the special regulation for ORV use at the Seashore as it relates to:
• The morning opening times of beaches that are closed to ORV use at night;
• The dates that some seasonal ORV routes are open in the fall and spring;
• The size and location of VFAs;
• The duration of ORV permits; and
• Other access improvements.
The rule states that ORV use is not allowed on designated routes in sea turtle nesting habitat (ocean intertidal zone, ocean backshore, dunes) before 6:00 a.m. between May 1 and September 14, and between September 15 and November 15 if sea turtles remain. Instead of establishing opening times for each ORV route in the rule, the NPS will publish the opening times for each route on an annual basis in the Superintendent's Compendium and on the park Web site (
The rule extends the dates for ORV use of seasonal designated routes in front of the villages of Rodanthe, Waves, Salvo, Avon, Frisco, and Hatteras and the Ocracoke Campground. These routes will open two weeks earlier in the fall and close two weeks later in the spring, making these seasonal routes open to ORV use from October 15 through April 14. These seasonal extensions are in areas and at times of the year which will not result in measurable impacts to sensitive wildlife, visitor experience, safety, or workload complexity for park staff.
The changes in the rule to designated ORV routes will modify the size and location of VFAs and improve ORV access in some locations. This rule makes the following changes to the designated ORV routes at the Seashore. Ramps 2.5 and 59.5 will not be constructed and are therefore removed from the chart of designated ORV routes. Ramp 2 will be restored to ORV use, extending the existing ORV route approximately 0.5 miles to the north and providing ORV access to the route from either ramp 4 or ramp 2. Ramp 59 will continue to be open to ORV use, extending the existing year-round ORV route approximately 0.5 miles. The seasonal ORV route at ramp 34 will be extended approximately 1 mile to the north and the seasonal ORV route at ramp 23 will be extended approximately 1.5 miles to the south. These changes will slightly increase ORV access on each of the islands without measurably impacting visitor experience, safety, sensitive wildlife species, or the workload complexity for NPS staff.
The existing regulations for the Seashore state that annual permits are valid for the calendar year for which they are issued, and that seven-day
The NPS intends to continue to recover the costs of administering the ORV permit program under 54 U.S.C. 103104.
The NPS is removing the existing ORV route designation along Devil Shoals Road (also referred to as Dump Station Road). An ORV permit will no longer be required to travel this road because motor vehicles are allowed on park roads without a permit under general NPS regulations. This route is therefore removed as a designated ORV route in the rule. Devil Shoals Road is an existing dirt road located across North Carolina State Highway 12 from the Ocracoke Campground that has been maintained as part of the park's road network. This road meets NPS road design standards as a Class II connector road than can provide normal passenger vehicle access to park areas of scenic and recreational interest on a dirt/gravel surface. This change allows for limited vehicular soundside access on Ocracoke Island without the requirement to purchase an ORV permit.
This rule extends the existing Cape Point bypass route south of ramp 44 by approximately 0.4 miles to the north so that it joins with ramp 44. This rule also extends the existing bypass route by approximately 600 feet to the south to provide additional ORV access near Cape Point when the ORV route along the beach is closed for safety or resource protection.
This rule makes several changes to the language in the existing ORV regulation to clarify and more accurately reflect existing conditions. Ramp 25.5 is renamed “ramp 25”; ramp 32.5 is renamed “ramp 32”; ramp 47.5 is renamed “ramp 48”; the description of the soundside ORV route at Little Kinnakeet is changed to reflect that it begins just west of the Kinnakeet lifesaving structures; and additional details are added to further clarify where existing routes terminate (
The changes to routes and ramps made as a result of this rule are available at
As discussed previously, the E.O. applies to ORV use on federal public lands that is not authorized under a valid lease, permit, contract, or license. Section 3(4) of E.O. 11644 provides that ORV “areas and trails shall be located in areas of the National Park system, Natural Areas, or National Wildlife Refuges and Game Ranges only if the respective agency head determines that off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, aesthetic, or scenic values.” Since the E.O. clearly was not intended to prohibit all ORV use everywhere in these units, the term “adversely affect” does not have the same meaning as the somewhat similar terms “adverse impact” or “adverse effect” commonly used in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Under NEPA, a procedural statute that provides for the study of environmental impacts, the term “adverse effect” refers to any effect, no matter how minor or negligible.
Section 3(4) of the E.O., by contrast, does not prescribe procedures or any particular means of analysis. It concerns substantive management decisions, and must instead be read in the context of the authorities applicable to such decisions. The Seashore is an area of the National Park System. Therefore, the NPS interprets the E.O. term “adversely affect” consistent with its NPS Management Policies 2006. These policies require the NPS to allow only “appropriate uses” of parks and to avoid “unacceptable impacts” to park resources or values. The NPS has evaluated this rule and confirmed that it complies with these policies.
Specifically, this rule will not impede the attainment of the Seashore's desired future conditions for natural and cultural resources as identified in the ORV FEIS. The NPS has determined this rule will not unreasonably interfere with the atmosphere of peace and tranquility, or the natural soundscape maintained in natural locations within the Seashore. Therefore, within the context of the E.O., ORV use on the ORV routes amended by this rule (which are also subject to safety and resource closures and other species management measures that will be implemented under this rule) will not adversely affect the natural, aesthetic, or scenic values of the Seashore.
Section 8(a) of the E.O. requires NPS to monitor the effects of the use of off-road vehicles on lands under its jurisdiction. On the basis of the information gathered, NPS shall from time to time amend or rescind designations of areas or other actions taken pursuant to the E.O. as necessary to further the policy of the E.O. The existing ORV FEIS and Record of Decision identify monitoring and resource protection procedures, and desired future conditions to provide for the ongoing and future evaluation of impacts of ORV use on protected resources. The Superintendent has the authority under this rule and under 36 CFR 1.5 to close portions of the Seashore as needed to protect park resources and values, and public health and safety.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. It directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed
This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2) of the SBREFA. This rule:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The designated ORV routes are located entirely within the Seashore, and will not result in direct expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments. This rule addresses public use of NPS lands, and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. Access to private property located within or adjacent to the Seashore will not be affected, and this rule does not regulate uses of private property. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rule only affects use of NPS-administered lands and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the Department's tribal consultation policy and have determined that tribal consultation is not required because the rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes.
This rule does not contain any new collection of information that requires approval by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA of 1995. OMB has approved the information collection requirements associated with NPS Special Park Use Permits and has assigned OMB Control Number 1024-0026 (expires 12/31/2016 and in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10, the agency may continue to conduct or sponsor this collection of information while the submission is pending at OMB). We estimate the annual burden associated with this information collection to be 8,500 hours per year. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under NEPA is not required because the NPS issued a FONSI. The EA and FONSI are available at
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
The primary authors of this regulation were Russel J. Wilson, Chief Regulations, Jurisdiction and Special Park Uses, National Park Service; and Jay Calhoun, Regulations Program Specialist, National Park Service.
District of Columbia, National Parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service amends 36 CFR part 7 as follows:
54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102; Sec. 7.96 also issued under DC Code 10-137 and DC Code 50-2201.07.
(c) * * *.
(2) * * *
(iv) ORV permits are valid for the dates specified on the permit. The public will be notified of any changes to ORV permit durations through one or more of the methods listed in § 1.7(a) of this chapter.
(9)
(12)
Postal Service
Final rule.
On October 12, 2016, the Postal Service filed a notice of mailing services price adjustments with the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), effective January 22, 2017. This final rule contains the revisions to
Audrey Meloni at (856) 933-4360, or Lizbeth Dobbins at (202) 268-3789.
Final prices are available under Docket Number R2017-1 on the Postal Regulatory Commission's Web site at
The Postal Service's final rule includes: Changes to prices, several mail classification updates, mailpiece marking changes, modifications to mailpiece weights and mail preparation categories, multiple product simplification efforts, a few minor revisions to the DMM to condense language and eliminate redundancy, a change to the redemption period of a money order claim from two years to one year, the addition of Official Mail Accounting System (OMAS) stamp shipment fee language, and updates to Enterprise Post Office Box Online (ePOBOL) process that change payment periods for online Post Office Box activity. Changes to Collect On Delivery will be published in a future final rule.
The Postal Service received 21 formal responses encompassing 34 comments on our price-change related proposal. Five responses included comments regarding more than one issue.
Nine comments requested that the Postal Service reconsider its decision to rename Standard Mail to USPS Marketing Mail. The commenters suggested that using the term “marketing” would indicate “advertising mail” or “junk mail” and cause the mail to have a lower “open rate”. Customers were unclear how a name change would encourage more people to use the mail.
Additional comments asked about the indicia, labeling criteria, transition period, and the lack of discussion with the industry and supportive research that would support such a measure that could be costly to both the USPS
One commenter believed the change would help promote the use of mail for marketing; while another was willing to explore an 18-month transition period before any changes to indicia would be required.
The Postal Service is updating the name to reflect vibrancy and to breathe new life into the former “Third-Class Mail” and “Standard Mail”. We expressed a desire at the National Postal Forum and through MTAC in early 2016 to improve the position of Standard Mail in the marketplace and to improve its perception.
In response to feedback from the mailing community, the new indicia or postage markings should not be used for letter or flat mail until January 2018 at the earliest. Tray label and pallet markings will be deferred until mid-2017 at the earliest. Other types of changes, such as changes to postage statements and forms, can move forward with the January 2017 price change. This phased transition period will allow both hardware and software changes to be implemented successfully.
Three commenters requested clarification on the pricing methodology for computing prices for First-Class Mail up to 3.5 ounces, and for residual pieces from either a presorted or automation mailing.
One comment suggested that heavier letters might slow down processing for mail service providers. The same commenter wanted to know whether the next price increase would be within the existing CPI allowances for the existing product, or the USPS would seek higher pricing based on this current proposed change.
Additional comments cited the lack of DMM language in the proposed rule identifying the types of pieces to which the weight increase changes would apply (such as enveloped pieces only, envelopes containing discs, heavy letters only, etc.), and clarifying the barcode placement for such pieces.
There are no changes to the pricing methodology for residual mail pieces. Also, there are no changes to the requirements for enveloped mail pieces, heavy letters, or envelopes containing discs. The market dominant price change will be done using the Centralized Accounting Postage System (CAPS), and all applicable DMM sections have been updated in this final rule.
One commenter asked if the new Labeling List 104 was being proposed as an added convenience.
Use of the new labeling list is optional.
Three commenters requested clarification of the USPS Marketing Mail weight limits. One wanted to know if the Notice 123,
USPS Marketing Mail automation letters weight will increase to 3.5 ounces, eliminating the previous piece/pound price for 3.3 to 3.5 ounces. Automation letters over 3.5 ounces will pay the applicable flats prices, however, for non-automation letters; the weight is up to 4 ounces.
Notice 123,
Three comments were received. One comment stated that the Postal Service has not considered the unintended effects of the proposed rule change, and the associated loss of revenue, and suggested withdrawing this change. The commenter suggested that many mailers will take advantage of the rule change by combining more mailpieces, thus reducing the number of pieces entered and the associated revenue, while increasing the average cost to handle those pieces.
Another comment wanted clarification regarding the effect of this change on booklets and folded self-mailers.
Lastly, one comment stated that raising the weight limit on the piece/pound break is a great move as long as the rate is not raised to make up for the resulting lost revenue.
There will be no changes to the parameters of booklets or Folded Self-Mailers.
Two comments requested clarification about the elimination of permit and annual mailing fees, specifically with regard to Bound Printed Matter and the QBRM quarterly fee.
A permit application fee and annual mailing fee must be paid for any destination entry Bound Printed Matter flats (except for qualifying Full-service Intelligent Mail barcode mailings). There is no application fee or annual mailing fee if a mailer uses Bound Printed Matter to mail parcels only.
There is no change to the QBRM quarterly fee at this time.
Two comments addressed the combining of 3-Digit and AADC letters, requesting clarification regarding the mandatory origin 3-Digit trays for the local SCF area, and the use of labeling lists L801 and L003.
Labeling list L003 will be combined with L801 with the following exceptions. With this final rule, effective January 22, 2017, all First-Class and Standard Mail automation/machinable letters will no longer be sorted to the 3 Digit level. They will be sorted to the AADC level, after optional 5-Digit sort, whether they are Destinating AADC trays or Originating AADC trays. The current requirement that origin SCF mail be sorted down to 3-Digit trays will be eliminated. There is no minimum quantity for Origin AADC trays; however, less bundling should result in fuller trays, and the use of many fewer trays. The entry price is the same. The L801 will be applicable to all of this type of mail.
The use of 3 Digit trays will still apply to Nonmachinable letters in all three classes, and Periodicals Machinable/Automation prices. Destinating and Originating 3 Digit trays can still be made for these three classes of Nonmachinable letters along with Periodicals machinable/auto letters. The origin 3-Digit tray preparation will thus remain the same for all Nonmachinable letters and Periodicals machinable/automation letters. Labeling List 002 will be used, which may involve L003 for 3-Digit schemes.
One organization submitted two comments suggesting that a price increase for commercial USPS Marketing Mail flats would result from increasing the pound rate and decreasing the per piece rate; producing a potential 4-10 percent increase in postage costs for their mailings.
Comments from comparable mailers expressed satisfaction with the prices as proposed. [A request for a recent postage statement so that USPS could do a before-and-after analysis to see if correct prices were being charged was not received.]
Two comments were received. One strongly supported the proposal to eliminate the FSS-specific price structures for Periodicals, USPS Marketing Mail, and Bound Printed Matter; however, the commenter disagreed with the proposal to leave the 250-pound minimum intact, fearing the unintended consequences of curtailing the benefits sought to be realized by the restoration of a more rational price structure.
Another comment asked if the Notice 123 would be updated and if FSS facility preparation would become mandatory.
The 250-pound minimum requirements will remain intact. The Notice 123,
One comment asked what indicia changes are proposed, and whether USPS data under the combined permit would be broken down by product.
There will be no changes to current procedures. Each product must be identified for volume reporting purposes.
One comment regarding the Informed Delivery enhancement suggested that the process would add another level of complexity and potential for errors, thereby, increasing costs.
Informed Delivery is outside the scope of the price changes addressed in this final rule.
We received three comments of a general nature. One comment suggested that DMM exhibit 708.7.1.1 was missing an indicator for presorted Bound Printed Matter flats, and another requested that educational webinars should be provided on Premium Forwarding Service and Share Mail.
The DMM will be updated as part of the January 22, 2017, price change implementation. Educational seminars will be presented on various subjects in the near future.
As background, on December 18, 2013, the Postal Service began to require bundle and pallet preparation of flat-size Standard Mail®, Periodicals, and Bound Printed Matter mailpieces for delivery within ZIP Codes
All carrier route Bound Printed Matter (BPM), carrier route Periodicals and carrier route (except saturation) Standard Mail flats meeting the standards in DMM 201.6.2 must be sorted to FSS schemes, properly bundled and placed on or in pallets, trays, sacks or approved containers, for FSS scheme ZIP Code combinations within the same facility. Mailings (excluding saturation mailings of Standard Mail) with non-presorted BPM flats may be included in FSS preparation, but will continue to be ineligible for presorted or carrier route prices.
To reiterate, all mailpieces in a 5-digit scheme FSS bundle must be identified with an OEL, as described in DMM 708.7.0. Mailpieces entered under a combined mailing of Standard Mail and Periodicals flats (DMM 705.15.0) still include class and price markings, applicable to the price paid, in addition to the OEL.
Periodicals, Standard Mail, and Bound Printed Matter flats properly included in a FSS scheme bundle qualify for the piece price applied prior to inclusion in the FSS scheme pool with the following exceptions for Standard Mail:
1. A carrier route mailpiece in a FSS bundle on a FSS scheme pallet will receive the Basic CR-Bundles/Pallet price.
2. A carrier route mailpiece in a FSS bundle on a FSS facility pallet will receive the Basic CR price.
Currently, there are four presort levels for FCM Commercial Automation Letters and Cards: Mixed AADC, AADC, 3-Digit, and 5-Digit. To help simplify the pricing structure, the Postal Service implemented the same price for AADC Automation Letters (Cards) and 3-Digit Automations Letters (Cards) in Docket No. R2012-3. The Postal Service is now combining AADC and 3-Digit presort levels into one sortation. The new sortation name will be AADC. The existing labeling List 801 will drive the FCM AADC separations, and origin entry separations, based on labeling List 002, will be modified to reflect origin entry AADC separations.
Currently, the “up to” weight standard for FCM Commercial Machinable Letters is 3.3 ounces. This lower weight break of up to 3.3 ounces is being increased due to mail processing improvements. Since machinable letters must follow the standards for Automation Letters (except for IMb), the same weight maximum should apply. Based on this, the Postal Service will increase the weight maximum from 3.3 ounces to 3.5 ounces. This change does not apply to the maximum weight of Booklets which are capped at 3.0 ounces.
Currently, the same price applies for one- and two-ounce pieces for each individual mail sortation level for FCM Commercial Automation Letters. With this final rule there will be one price for up to 3.5 ounces for each individual mail sortation level for FCM Commercial Automation Letters. This will also apply to mixed-weight FCM Residual mailings up to 3.5 ounces. The current preparation requirements for non-blended trays, such as one ounce, up to two ounces, and now extending to 3.5 ounces will continue. This change does not include FCM single-piece letters (non-residual) or FCM Flats.
The Postal Service will rename Alternate Postage as Share Mail. This implements a proposal published in the June 9, 2016, Postal Bulletin (Issue #22443). Share Mail allows Postal Service customers to distribute single-piece FCM letters or cards to consumers, who may in turn mail those pieces to any domestic address, without having to affix postage. Share Mail pieces are permitted to weigh up to one ounce each. Payment is collected electronically from the customer's Postage Due and Centralized Accounting Postage System (CAPS) Account. Invoicing is performed manually, by the Postal Service's Share Mail Program Office in Marketing. To continue the Postal Service's efforts to simplify its product line, the Share Mail payment tiers will be collapsed into one, and upfront postage payment requirements will be eliminated. Unique Intelligent Mail barcodes are no longer required nor is a signed Marketing Agreement. Picture Permit will no longer be available in order to help expedite the approval process. A customer who wishes to participate must submit a request to the Share Mail Program Office along with production pieces to ensure readability for postal processing. Share Mail relies on Intelligent Mail barcode (IMb) technology and scan data collected as the mailpiece travels through the mailstream to determine piece counts, so readability is paramount.
The Postal Service will eliminate the FSS specific price structures for Periodicals Outside-County. FSS preparation will still be required and all FSS marking requirements will remain as is. Outside-County Periodicals flats properly included in a FSS scheme bundle will qualify for the price applied prior to inclusion in the FSS scheme pool. If a FSS scheme pallet is drop-shipped to a DFSS facility, the pallet will receive Carrier Route pallet pricing. If a FSS facility pallet is drop-shipped to a DFSS facility the pallet will receive DSCF pallet pricing. Qualifying FSS scheme pieces entered at a DFSS facility will receive DSCF pound pricing. FSS scheme bundles on an FSS scheme pallet will receive carrier route bundle prices. FSS scheme bundles on an FSS facility pallet will receive 3-digit/SCF bundle pricing. FSS scheme and facility sack/trays or other authorized container
The Postal Service will rename Standard Mail as “USPS Marketing Mail”. This name change will better communicate to our customers the message that Standard Mail fits into their marketing mix.
To help smooth the transition for this change, the Postal Service will modify postage statements and the DMM for January 2017 and implement other changes to postal forms or documents during the normal update cycles. The initial implementation date for mailers to adopt the new USPS Marketing Mail abbreviations (such as MKT in lieu of STD) is July 1, 2018. Abbreviations and examples of permit imprints will be available in a future Postal Bulletin.
The Postal Service is eliminating FSS specific price structures for Bound Printed Matter Flats. FSS preparation will still be required, and all FSS marking requirements will remain in place. Bound Printed Matter flat pieces included in an FSS scheme bundle will qualify for the zone and entry piece pricing and pound pricing applicable to the mailing piece before inclusion in the FSS scheme pool. If an FSS container is drop shipped to a DFSS facility, those pieces will receive DSCF pricing.
Currently there are four presort levels for Standard Mail and Standard Mail Nonprofit Automation Letters: Mixed AADC Automation Letters, AADC Automation Letters, 3-Digit Automation Letters, and 5-Digit Automation Letters. To simplify the pricing structure, the Postal Service implemented the same price for AADC Automation Letters and 3-Digit Automation Letters in Docket No. R2013-1. The Postal Service is combining these two presort levels (AADC and 3-Digit) into one new sortation which will be named AADC.
Currently, the “up to” weight standard for Standard Mail and Standard Mail Nonprofit Machinable Letters is 3.3 ounces. This lower “weight break” is no longer needed due to improvements in mail processing equipment. Since machinable letters must follow the standards for Automation Letters (except for the IMb standards), the weight maximum should also apply. Accordingly, the Postal Service will increase the weight maximum from 3.3 ounces to 3.5 ounces. This change does not include Standard Mail Ride-Along mailpieces which are capped at 3.3 ounces and are inserted into a host Periodicals mailpiece.
It is important that both the Industry and the Postal Service evaluate the effects of higher weight breaks for First-Class Mail automation letters and cards along with Standard Mail letters. Collaboration and feedback throughout calendar year 2017 will be critical in helping to determine whether higher weights cause processing or address quality metrics to be put at risk.
There are currently six volume tiers for Standard Mail Commercial and Nonprofit Simple Samples. Based on the volume thresholds currently used by most customers, the Postal Service will collapse the existing six tiers into two new tiers: Volumes up to and including 200,000 pieces, and volumes greater than 200,000 pieces.
The Postal Service will eliminate the FSS-specific price structures within Standard Mail and Standard Mail Nonprofit. FSS preparation will still be required and all FSS marking requirements will remain intact.
Standard Mail and Standard Mail Nonprofit flats properly included in a FSS scheme pool will qualify for the price applied prior to the FSS scheme pool with the following exceptions:
1. A carrier route mailpiece in an FSS bundle on an FSS scheme pallet will receive the Basic CR-Bundles/Pallet price, and
2. A carrier route mailpiece in a FSS bundle on an FSS facility pallet will receive the Basic CR price.
If an FSS pallet is drop shipped to a DFSS facility, those pieces will receive DSCF pricing.
The current piece/pound price structure for Standard Mail and Standard Mail Nonprofit Flats, Nonautomation Letters, and Nonmachinable Letters does not provide a simple, clear view of the actual price of a mailing, especially if it includes nonidentical-weight pieces between 3.3 and 4 ounces. The Postal Service will increase the piece price weight break structure from 3.3 ounces to 4.0 ounces for Standard Mail and Standard Mail Nonprofit Flats, and Nonautomation and Nonmachinable Letters. Pieces up to 4 ounces will pay the same price and a pound price will apply over 4 ounces. This will not include Nonautomation Machinable Letters.
Business Reply Mail (BRM) currently consists of letters, flats, and parcels. Occasionally, BRM customers may choose to use Business Reply Mail for return parcels because they possess a BRM permit for inbound correspondence. The Postal Service will waive the annual permit fee for those customers using BRM exclusively for return parcels. This will align BRM parcels with other returns products. BRM permit fees for letters and flats, and for weight-averaged BRM letters, flats and parcels, will remain.
The Postal Service is also eliminating the annual permit fees for Business Reply customers who use only QBRM Basic and High Volume Qualified for letters and cards. All other fees and postage pricing remain intact.
The Postal Service will eliminate the fees for certain outbound and return permits used for parcel shipments including associated annual account maintenance fees. This will streamline the application and returns process, and eliminate the need to pay permit application fees for additional entry points. Shipping Products included under this umbrella are outbound shipments of Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, First-Class Package Service, Parcel Select (including Parcel Select Lightweight), Bound Printed Matter (parcels only), Media Mail, and Library Mail, as well as for return shipments of MRS, Parcel Return Service and BRM (parcels only).
Standard Mail letters and flats mailers that use this service are charged the
To be consistent with Banking Industry Standards and other companies' comparable money order offerings, the Postal Service will change the time limit for claims for improper payment to a limit of one year. This language will be updated on the reverse side of the domestic and international money order form so the purchaser is aware of the time limit.
The Postal Service plans to allow Enterprise PO Boxes Online customers to modify their current payment period to align their multiple PO Boxes, Caller Service, and Reserve payments to one due date per year, when using an Enterprise Payment Account (EPA). Eligible customers will be allowed to pay pro-rated fees on a one-time basis to align all payments to a selected annual renewal date in the future. This method is optional and will be available for all of an eligible customer's PO Boxes and Caller Service numbers. When the true-up date is reached they will continue to pay for the 12 month term as committed when first enrolled in the Enterprise Payment Account.
Federal agencies have the option today to order stamps from the USPS Stamp Fulfillment Services in Kansas City and to pay for the stamps through their Official Mail Accounting System (OMAS) accounts. It has been a long-standing practice to charge customers other than federal agencies a nominal handling fee for all purchases ordered through Stamp Fulfillment Services. Beginning January 1, 2017, these fees will apply to federal agencies using OMAS.
The handling fee schedule can be found in section 1560 of the
The Postal Service will provide additional resources to assist customers with this price change for competitive products. These tools include price lists, downloadable price files, and
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
The Postal Service adopts the following changes to
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
The maximum weight for Presorted First-Class Mail machinable letters is 3.5 ounces (0.2188 pound). The maximum weight for USPS Marketing Mail machinable letters is 3.5 ounces (0.2188 pound).
* * * In addition, a letter-size piece is nonmachinable if it weighs more than 3.5 ounces (except Periodicals nonmachinable letters cannot weigh more than 3.3 ounces), unless it has a barcode and is eligible for, and claims, automation letter prices or USPS Marketing Mail Carrier Route (barcoded) letter prices.
The following maximum weight limits apply:
b. Machinable enveloped letters and cards—3.5 ounces. (see 3.6 for pieces over 3 ounces.)
* * * A nonautomation letter may bear an Intelligent Mail barcode under 708.4.0. Mailers must print the barcode either in the address block or in the barcode clear zone, except for pieces that weigh more than 3.5 ounces which must include the barcode in the address block. * * *
Strapping is not required for any letter tray placed on a 5-digit, 3-digit, or SCF pallet secured with stretchwrap. If the processing and distribution manager gives a written waiver, strapping is not required for any mixed AADC letter tray of First-Class Mail or for any letter tray that originates and destinates in the same SCF or AADC (mail processing plant) service area.
Outside-County nonbarcoded (Presorted) prices are based on the following criteria:
a. Piece prices are based on shape, machinability, barcoding, and presort level. The presort level of the piece is based primarily on the bundle level of the piece, except the presort level of pieces loose in trays is based on the tray level and qualifying FSS scheme flats are based on presort levels prior to inclusion in the FSS scheme bundle.
b. Bundle prices are based on the bundle and container sortation level except FSS scheme bundles in/on a FSS scheme container receives carrier route pricing; FSS scheme bundles in/on a FSS facility container receives 3-digit/SCF pricing.
c. Container prices are based on the type of container (tray, sack, or pallet), the level of sortation of the container and where the container is entered except FSS facility containers and FSS scheme sacks or trays receive 3-digit/SCF pricing and where the container is entered, and FSS scheme pallets receive carrier route prices and where the pallet is entered.
3-digit prices apply to:
c. Flat-size pieces not qualifying for carrier route or 5-digit prices, but properly included in a FSS scheme pool prepared under 705.14.0.
Preparation to qualify eligible pieces for carrier route prices is optional and need not be performed for all carrier routes in a 5-digit area. Carrier route prices apply to copies that are prepared in carrier route bundles of six or more addressed pieces each, subject to these standards:
b.
4. Qualifying carrier route mailpieces sorted into FSS bundles and prepared on pallets under 705.14.0.
The high density or saturation prices apply to each piece in a carrier route mailing, eligible under 13.2.1 and prepared under 705.8.0, 23.0, or (non-letter-size mail only) 705.10.0, 705.12.0, 705.13.0 or 705.14.0, that also meets the corresponding addressing and density standards in 13.3.4. High density and saturation mailings must be prepared in carrier walk sequence according to USPS schemes see 23.8 except nonletter-size mailpieces that are included in FSS bundles.
3-digit automation prices apply to:
c. Flat-size pieces not qualifying for carrier route or 5-digit prices, but properly included in a FSS scheme pool prepared under 705.14.0.
Flat sized Periodicals In-County priced mailings, along with a maximum of 5,000 Outside-County pieces for the same issue (see 1.1.4) may be optionally sorted under FSS preparation standards. All other Periodicals flats including Saturation (Non-simplified addressed) and High Density priced flats (except Firm bundles) destinating and qualifying to FSS zones in L006, must be prepared under 705.14.0.
Determine price eligibility as follows:
a. Pound Prices. Outside-County pieces are eligible for DSCF pound prices when placed on an SCF or more finely presorted container, deposited at the DSCF, DFSS or USPS-designated facility (see also 29.4.2b), and addressed for delivery within the DSCF's or DFSS service area. Non-letter-size pieces are also eligible when the mailer deposits 5-digit bundles at the destination delivery unit (DDU) (the facility where the carrier cases mail for delivery to the addresses on the pieces) and the 5-digit bundles are in or on the following types of containers:
1. A merged 5-digit scheme or merged 5-digit sack.
2. A merged 5-digit scheme, merged 5-digit, or 5-digit scheme pallet.
b. Container Prices. Mailers may claim the DSCF container price for SCF or FSS and more finely presorted containers that are entered at and destined within the service area of the SCF or FSS at which the container is deposited.
DSCF prices apply to eligible FSS pieces deposited at a USPS-designated FSS processing facility and correctly placed in a flat tray, sack, alternate approved container or on a pallet, labeled to a FSS scheme processed by that facility, under labeling list L006, column B or C. * * *
Automation prices apply to each piece that is sorted under 235.6.0 into the corresponding qualifying groups:
a. Groups of 150 or more pieces in 5-digit/scheme trays qualify for the 5-digit price. Preparation to qualify for the 5-digit price is optional. Pieces placed in full AADC trays in lieu of 5-digit/scheme overflow trays under 235.6.5 are eligible for the 5-digit prices.
b. Groups of 150 or more pieces in AADC trays qualify for the AADC price.
c. Groups of fewer than 150 pieces in AADC origin and pieces placed in mixed AADC trays in lieu of AADC overflow trays under 235.6.5 are eligible for the AADC prices.
Terms used for presort levels are defined as follows:
i. An
The requirements for mailings are as follows:
b. First-Class Mail. A single automation price First-Class Mail mailing may include pieces prepared at 5-digit, AADC, and mixed AADC prices.
Instead of preparing overflow trays with fewer than 150 pieces, mailers may include these pieces in an existing qualified tray of at least 150 or more pieces at the next tray level. (For example, if a mailer has 30 overflow 5-digit pieces for ZIP Code 20260, these pieces may be added to an existing qualified AADC tray for the correct destination and the overflow 5-digit pieces will still qualify for the 5-digit
b. AADC: optional, but required for AADC price (150-piece minimum except no minimum for origin entry AADC); overflow allowed; For Line 1, use L801, Column B.
Line 2: “FCM LTR” and:
USPS Marketing Mail prices are based on the weight of the pieces as follows:
a. The appropriate minimum per piece price applies to USPS Marketing Mail automation or machinable letter-sized mailpiece that weighs 3.5 ounces (0.2188 pound) or less, Nonautomation nonmachinable letters that weigh 4.0 ounces (0,25 pounds) or less, flat-sized mailpieces that weighs 4.0 ounces (0.25 pound) or less and presorted Marketing Parcels and irregular parcels that weighs 3.3 ounces (0.2063 pound) or less.
b. A price determined by adding the per piece charge and the corresponding per pound charge applies to any USPS Marketing Mail piece that weighs more than the following: Nonmachinable letters and flats that weigh more than 4.0 ounces, presorted Marketing Parcels and Irregular parcels that weigh more than 3.3 ounces, and machinable parcels 3.5 ounces or more.
The minimum per piece prices (the minimum postage that must be paid for each piece) apply as follows:
[
c. * * * Except for Customized MarketMail pieces, discounted per piece prices also may be claimed for destination network distribution center (DNDC), destination sectional center facility (DSCF), and destination delivery unit (DDU)) under 246. * * *
* * * Discounted per pound prices also may be claimed for destination entry mailings DNDC, DSCF, and DDU under 246.
Maximum weight limit for machinable nonautomation USPS Marketing mail letters is 3.5 ounces (0.2188 pound).
The 5-digit price applies to flat-size pieces:
d. In an FSS bundle of 10 or more pieces properly placed in sack of at least 125 pieces or 15 pounds of pieces or on a pallet under 705.14.0.
c. In an FSS bundle of 10 or more pieces properly placed in sack of at least 125 pieces or 15 pounds of pieces or on a pallet under 705.14.0.
Mixed ADC prices apply to flat-size pieces in bundles that do not qualify for 5-digit, 3-digit, or ADC prices; placed in mixed ADC sacks or on ASF, NDC, or mixed NDC pallets under 705.8.0.
c. Be sorted to carrier routes (except under 705.14.0), marked, and documented under 245.9.0, 705.8.0, or 705.14.0.
Basic prices apply to each piece in a carrier route bundle of 10 or more pieces that is:
a. Palletized under 705.8.0, 705.10.0, 705.12.0, 705.13.0 or 705.14.0 (FSS scheme bundles on a FSS facility pallet or prior eligibility to inclusion in FSS scheme pool).
Basic—CR Bundles/Pallet prices apply to each piece in a carrier route bundle of 10 or more pieces that are palletized under 705.8.0 on a 5-digit carrier route or 5-digit scheme carrier route pallet entered at an Origin (None), DNDC, DSCF, or DDU entry or palletized under 705.14.0 on a FSS scheme pallet (in a FSS Scheme bundle).
High density or high density plus prices apply to each piece meeting the density standards in 6.5.1 or in a carrier route bundle of 10 or more pieces that is:
a. Palletized under 705.8.0, 705.10.0, 705.12.0, 705.13.0 or 705.14.0 (eligibility prior to inclusion in FSS scheme bundles).
e. Placed in a FSS facility or scheme sack containing at least 125 pieces or 15 pounds of high density priced pieces or at least 300 pieces of high density plus priced pieces (pieces must qualify for price prior to inclusion in FSS bundle).
Automation prices apply to each piece that is sorted under 245.10.0, into the corresponding qualifying groups:
b. Groups of fewer than 150 pieces in origin AADC trays and groups of 150 or more pieces in an AADC tray qualify for the AADC price. Pieces placed in mixed AADC trays under 245.7.5 in lieu of AADC overflow trays also are eligible for AADC prices (see 245.7.5).
Automation prices apply to each piece properly sorted into qualifying groups:
a. The 5-digit price applies to flat-size pieces in a 5-digit/scheme bundle or pooled in a FSS scheme bundle of 10 or more pieces, or 15 or more pieces, as applicable;
b. The 3-digit price applies to flat-size pieces in a 3-digit/scheme bundle or pooled in a FSS scheme bundle of 10 or more pieces.
Terms used for presort levels are defined as follows:
r. An
Except for USPS Marketing Mail flats mailed at Saturation prices, all USPS Marketing Mail flats and meeting the physical standards in 201.6.2 destinating to a FSS scheme in accordance with labeling list L006 must be prepared under 705.14.0.
For all ECR letters over 3.5 ounces and all ECR letters that are not automation-compatible or delivery-point barcoded, prepare trays as explained below. Also prepare trays as explained below when a mailing contains some pieces over 3.5 ounces and some pieces up to 3.5 ounces. Pieces with simplified addresses must be prepared in separate trays from pieces with other forms of addressing. For ECR automation-compatible letters that are delivery-point barcoded and weigh up to 3.5 ounces, prepare trays under 6.7. Preparation sequence, tray size, and labeling:
Mailers must make full carrier route and 5-digit carrier routes trays, when possible, for automation-compatible, delivery-point barcoded ECR letters that weigh up to 3.5 ounces. * * *
Instead of preparing overflow trays with fewer than 150 pieces, mailers may include these pieces in an existing qualified tray of at least 150 or more pieces at the next tray level. (For example, if a mailer has 30 overflow 5-digit pieces for ZIP Code 20260, these pieces may be added to an existing qualified AADC tray for the correct destination and the overflow 5-digit pieces will still qualify for the 5-digit price). Mailers must note these trays on standardized documentation (see 708.1.2). Pieces that are placed in the next tray level must be grouped by destination and placed in the front or back of that tray. Mailers may use this option selectively for AADC ZIP Codes. This option does not apply to origin/entry AADC trays. Preparation sequence, tray size, and Line 1 labeling:
b. AADC: Optional, but required for AADC price (150-piece minimum except no minimum for origin entry AADC); overflow allowed. For Line 1, use L801, Column B.
Line 2: “MKT LTR” and:
All mailings and all pieces in each mailing at Regular USPS Marketing Mail and Nonprofit USPS Marketing Mail nonautomation prices are subject to specific preparation standards in 8.2 through 8.9 and to these general standards (automation price mailings must be prepared under 10.0):
d. Sortation determines price eligibility as specified in 243.5.0 except when included in a FSS scheme bundle under 705.14.0.
All mailings and all pieces in each mailing at Enhanced Carrier Route USPS Marketing Mail and Enhanced Carrier Route Nonprofit USPS Marketing Mail nonautomation prices are subject to specific preparation standards in 9.2 through 9.7 and to these general standards:
d. All pieces in the mailing must meet the specific sortation and preparation standards in 9.0 or the palletization standards in 705.8.0 except when included in a FSS scheme bundle under 705.14.0. Flat-size pieces may be prepared under 705.9.0 through 705.13.0.
e. Sortation determines price eligibility as specified in 243.5.0 except when included in a FSS scheme bundle under 705.14.0.
DSCF prices apply to pieces deposited at a USPS-designated FSS processing site and correctly placed in or on a container labeled to a FSS scheme or FSS Facility processed by that site under labeling list L006 (Column B or Column C).
* * * The nonpresorted price applies to BPM not mailed at the Presorted or carrier route prices. * * *
The presorted Bound Printed Matter price has a per piece charge and a per pound charge. * * *
Presorted and Carrier Route Bound Printed Matter mailings paid with permit imprint are charged a per pound price and a per piece price as follows:
BPM prices are based on the weight of a single addressed piece or 1 pound, whichever is higher, and the zone (where applicable) to which the piece is addressed. Price categories are as follows:
b. Presorted Price. The Presorted price applies to BPM prepared in a mailing of at least 300 BPM pieces, prepared and presorted as specified in 265.5.0, 265.8.0, 705.8.0, 705.14.0 and 705.21.0. Each parcel must bear a unique Intelligent Mail package barcode or extra services barcode, including a postal routing code, prepared under 708.5.0.
c. Carrier Route Price. The Carrier Route price applies to BPM prepared in a mailing of at least 300 pieces presorted to carrier routes, prepared and presorted as specified in 265.6.0, 265.9.0, 705.8.0 or 705.14.0. Each parcel must bear a unique Intelligent Mail package barcode or extra services barcode, including a postal routing code, prepared under 708.5.0.
BPM destination entry prices apply to BPM mailings prepared as specified in 705.8.0, 705.14.0 and 265, and addressed for delivery within the service area of a destination network distribution center, sectional center facility, or delivery unit where they are deposited by the mailer. * * *
b. A destination sectional center facility (DSCF) includes all facilities in L005 and destination flats sequencing system (DFSS) in L006.
BPM flats claiming presorted prices in FSS scheme bundles, meeting the standards in 201 and destinating to a FSS scheme in accordance with labeling list L006, must be prepared under 705.14.0.
Presorted flats and automation flats in sacks for the FSS scheme, 5-digit, 3-digit, and SCF sort levels or on pallets at the 5-digit scheme, 5-digit, 3-digit, SCF, and ASF sort levels may claim
DSCF prices apply to pieces deposited at a USPS-designated FSS processing facility and correctly placed on a container labeled to a FSS scheme or a FSS facility processed by that facility or to a single 5-digit destination processed by that facility under labeling list L006.
Except for certificate of mailing under 5.0, the mailer receives a USPS sales receipt and the postmarked (round-dated) extra service form for services purchased at retail channels. The mailer must provide the receipt when submitting an insurance claim or filing an inquiry. For articles mailed via PC Postage or other online services, the mailer may access a computer printout online that identifies the applicable extra service number, total postage paid, insurance fee amount, declared value, declared mailing date, origin ZIP Code, and delivery ZIP Code. For three or more pieces with extra or accountable services presented for mailing at one time, the mailer uses Form 3877 (firm sheet) or USPS-approved privately printed firm sheets (see 1.7.2) in lieu of the receipt portion of the individual form. All entries made on firm sheets must be computer generated or made by typewriter, ink, or ballpoint pen. Alterations must be initialed by the mailer and accepting employee. Obliterate all unused portions of the addressee column with a diagonal line. USPS-approved privately printed firm sheets that contain the same information as Form 3877 may be approved by the local Postmaster or manager Business Mail Entry. The mailer may omit columns from privately printed Form 3877 that are not applicable to extra service requested. If the mailer wants the firm sheets receipted by the USPS (postmarked), the mailer must present the firm sheets with the articles to be mailed at a Post Office. The postmarked firm sheets become the mailer's receipts. For Registered Mail and COD (when Label 3816 is used), the mailer submits the forms in duplicate and receives one copy as a mailing receipt after the entries are verified by the postal employee accepting the mailing. Except for Registered Mail and COD items, the USPS keeps no mailing records for mail pieces bearing extra services.
Additional insurance, up to a maximum coverage of $5,000.00, may be purchased for merchandise valued at more than $100.00 sent by Priority Mail Express. The additional insurance fee is in addition to postage and other fees. Coverage is limited to the actual value of the contents, regardless of the fee paid, or the highest insurance value increment for which the fee is fully paid, whichever is lower. When “signature required” service is not requested or when “waiver of signature” is requested, additional insurance is not available.
For basic qualified BRM a permit holder is required to pay an account maintenance fee under 1.1.8, and a per-piece fee under 1.1.7, in addition to the applicable letter or card First-Class Mail postage for each returned piece. * * *
In addition to the account maintenance, per-piece fees and applicable postage required under 1.1.3, a quarterly fee under 1.1.11 is required for high-volume QBRM.
The mailer may apply for a BRM permit by submitting a completed Form 3615 to the Post Office issuing the permit and except under 1.2.3 paying the annual permit fee. * * *
Except for QBRM permits, a permit fee must be paid once each 12-month period at each Post Office where a BRM permit is held. * * *
Except for QBRM permits, an annual renewal notice is provided to each BRM permit holder by the USPS. QBRM permits do not expire unless the account is unused for a period of 12 months. The renewal notice and the payment for the next 12 months must be returned by the expiration date to the Post Office that issued the permit. After the expiration date, if the permit holder has not paid the annual permit fee, then returned BRM pieces are treated as follows:
The USPS may revoke any BRM permit because of format errors or for refusal to pay the applicable permit fees (annual, accounting, quarterly, or monthly), postage, or per piece fees. If the permit was revoked due to format errors, then a former permit holder may obtain a new permit and permit number by completing and submitting a new Form 3615, paying the required BRM annual permit fee (if applicable), paying a new annual account maintenance fee (if applicable), and, for the next 2 years, submitting two samples of each BRM format to the appropriate Post Office for approval.
At the sender's request, the delivery Post Office holds mail, other than Registered Mail, insured, Certified Mail, Adult Signature, Signature Confirmation and return receipt for merchandise, for no fewer than 3 days nor more than 30 days. * * *
f. A notice is provided to the addressee for a mailpiece that cannot be delivered. If the piece is not called for or redelivery is not requested, the piece is returned to the sender after 15 days (five days for Priority Mail Express), unless the sender specifies fewer days on the piece.
d. A CMRA is authorized to accept the following accountable mail from their customers for mailing at the Post Office: Insured, Priority Mail Express, Certified Mail, USPS Tracking, and Signature Confirmation mail. The sender (CMRA customer) must present accountable mail items not listed to the Post Office for mailing.
A mailer may obtain a permit to use a permit imprint indicia by submitting Form 3615 to the Post Office where mailings are made, or online under the terms and conditions in the Business Customer Gateway portal at
No application fee is required.
A permit may be revoked for use in operating any unlawful scheme or enterprise, if no mailings or payment of postage occurred during any consecutive 2-year period, for refusal to provide information about permit imprint use or mailings, and for noncompliance with any standard applicable to permit imprints. * * *
A permit imprint displaying the city, state, and permit number of a mailer's original permit may be applied to pieces in a mailing presented for verification and acceptance at another Post Office location under the following conditions:
Share Mail is an electronic postage payment mechanism for single-piece First-Class Mail letters or postcards, addressed to any domestic address, that weigh no more than one ounce each. Customers wishing to participate in this program must submit their request in writing to the Manager, New Solutions, Mailing Services, USPS, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Room 5440, Washington, DC 20260-4440. Customers participating in the Share Mail postage payment program must, at a minimum, meet the following requirements:
PDWA customers may elect to establish a quality control program to ensure that all missorted and accountable mail (including Certified Mail), return receipt for merchandise, USPS Tracking, Adult Signature, and Signature Confirmation) is identified and returned to the servicing Post Office prior to being opened. * * *
A claim may be filed by:
All presorted and high density plus, high density and basic carrier route USPS Marketing Mail, presorted and carrier route Bound Printed Matter (BPM), and Periodicals flats including all carrier route flats meeting the standards in 201.6.2 must be separated/pooled into FSS schemes, properly bundled and placed on or in pallets, trays, sacks, or approved alternate containers, for FSS scheme ZIP Code combinations within the same facility. Mailings that include 10 or more pieces of USPS Marketing Mail flats, 6 or more pieces of Periodicals flats, or 10 or more pieces (or 10 or more pounds) of BPM flats to an FSS scheme must be separated/pooled into FSS scheme bundles. The Postal Service also recommends the use of authorized flat trays in lieu of sacks for FSS bundles. FSS scheme bundles that are not required to be placed in a FSS scheme or FSS facility container are combined with bundles of non-FSS sorted bundles and placed on an applicable SCF, 3-digit
All Periodicals flats (including carrier route flats) meeting the standards in 201.6.2 and destinating to FSS sites as shown in L006 must be prepared according to these standards. Mailings of In-County Periodicals flats and the associated Outside-County Periodicals flats mailings of 5,000 pieces or less may be prepared according to these standards. Periodicals are subject to the following:
a. Pricing eligibility is based on 207.11.0 through 207.14.0. FSS bundles placed on FSS facility pallets, sacks, trays, or approved alternate container will claim the 3-Digit/SCF bundle price. FSS bundles placed on a FSS scheme pallet, sack, tray or approved alternate container will claim the Carrier Route bundle price.
b. FSS scheme pallets will be assessed the Carrier Route Pallet price. FSS facility sort level pallets will be charged a 3-Digit/SCF Pallet container price. FSS scheme or facility sacks or trays will be assessed the 3-Digit/SCF Sack/Tray price. Pallets, sacks and trays entered at a DFSS will claim the DSCF entry price.
c. The Outside-County pound price for mail entered at a DFSS will be the DSCF price. The Inside-County price will claim prices for the “None” entry level.
d. Mailers must provide standardized presort documentation under 708.1.0 that demonstrates eligibility for prices in accordance with 207.14.0 and 207.25.0.
e. Each mailpiece must be identified with an optional endorsement line in accordance with Exhibit 708.7.1.1, or when authorized, using a red Label 5 SCH barcoded pressure-sensitive bundle label.
All flat-size USPS Marketing Mail mailpieces (except saturation) must be separated/pooled into 5-digit FSS scheme bundles and placed on pallets, or in sacks or approved alternate containers, for delivery to ZIP Codes having Flats Sequencing System (FSS) processing capability, as shown in L006. USPS Marketing Mail flats are subject to the following:
b. Mailers must provide standardized presort documentation under 708.1.0 that demonstrates eligibility for prices in accordance with 243.
c. Each mailpiece must be identified with an optional endorsement line in accordance with Exhibit 708.7.1.1; or when authorized, using a red Label 5 SCH barcoded pressure-sensitive bundle label.
Bound Printed Matter (BPM) flats that meet the standards in 201.6.2 must be separated/pooled into FSS scheme bundles and placed on pallets, or in flat trays, sacks, or approved alternate containers, for delivery to ZIP Codes having FSS processing capability, as shown in L006. BPM flats are subject to the following:
b. Mailers must provide standardized presort documentation under 708.1.0 that demonstrates eligibility for prices in accordance with 263.
c. Mailers must separate/pool all eligible flat-size mailpieces into FSS scheme bundles according to L006.
d. Each mailpiece must be identified with an optional endorsement line in accordance with Exhibit 708.7.1.1; or when authorized, using a red Label 5 SCH barcoded pressure-sensitive bundle label.
Apply piece prices based on the bundle level except FSS scheme bundles apply the piece prices based on the original bundle level. Pieces contained within mixed class bundles may claim prices based on the presort level of the bundle.
Mailers authorized to combine mailings of USPS Marketing Mail flats and Periodicals flats must prepare these mailings under 14.0, when the mailing includes pieces destinating within one or more of the FSS zones in L006. The following applies:
a. Each mailpiece must be identified with an optional endorsement line (OEL), including the correct ZIP Code listed in L006, Column B, in accordance with Exhibit 708.7.1.1. The OEL described in 2.2 must not be used with mailpieces prepared under this option.
When combining USPS Marketing Mail and Periodicals flats within the same bundle or combining bundles of USPS Marketing Mail flats and bundles of Periodicals flats on pallets, bundles must be placed on pallets. Preparation, sequence and labeling:
a.
1. Line 1: L001.
2. Line 2: “STD/PER FLTS”; followed by “CARRIER ROUTES” (or “CR-RTS”); followed by “SCHEME” (or “SCH”); followed by “MIX COMAIL.”
b.
1. Line 1: L001.
2. Line 2: “STD/PER FLTS CR/5D;” followed by “SCHEME” (or “SCH”); followed by “MIX COMAIL.”
For First-Class Mail, Periodicals, USPS Marketing Mail, and Bound Printed Matter, standardized documentation includes:
e. At the end of the documentation, a summary report of the number of pieces mailed at each price for each mailing by postage payment method (flat pieces mailed under FSS sort by 5-digit, 3-digit, saturation, high density, high density plus, basic carrier route and by entry point for drop shipment mailings) and the number of pieces in each mailing. This information must match the information reported on the postage statement(s). For Periodicals mailings, documentation also must provide:
The publisher must be able to present documentation to support the number of copies of each edition of an issue, by entry point, mailed to each zone, and at DDU, DSCF, DADC, DNDC, and In-County prices. * * *
Use the actual price name or the authorized zone abbreviation in the listings in 1.0 and 207.17.4.2:
An optional endorsement line (OEL) may be used to label bundles instead of applying pressure-sensitive bundle labels or facing slips to the top piece of bundles except each mailpiece in a FSS bundle must bear an optional endorsement line in human-readable text, including the correct ZIP code listed in Column B of L006, as described in Exhibit 7.1.1 * * *
* * * The following additional standards also apply:
c. When combined mailings of USPS Marketing Mail and Periodicals flats are prepared to FSS zones under 705.15.1.11, each mailpiece must bear an optional endorsement line in human-readable text, including the correct ZIP code listed in Column B of L006, as described in Exhibit 7.1.1.
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing our determination that the San Luis Obispo (Eastern San Luis Obispo) ozone nonattainment area (NAA) in California has attained the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or “standards”) by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2016. This determination is based on complete, quality-assured and certified data for the 3-year period preceding that attainment date. Based on this determination, the Eastern San Luis Obispo NAA will not be reclassified to a higher ozone classification.
This rule will be effective on January 20, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0543. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3848,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On October 12, 2016 (81 FR 70382), the EPA proposed to determine that the Eastern San Luis Obispo ozone NAA has attained the 2008 ozone standard by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2106, based on complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2013-2015 monitoring period. San Luis Obispo County is the northern-most county within the air basin designated by California as the South Central Coast Air Basin. The NAA encompasses roughly the eastern half of San Luis Obispo County. For the precise boundaries of the Eastern San Luis Obispo 2008 ozone NAA, see 40 CFR 81.305.
Our proposed rule provided background information on the 2008 ozone standards,
Our proposed rule included a table of ozone “design values” at the two ozone monitoring sites in the Eastern San Luis
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments.
Under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), and based on the rationale presented in our proposed rule and summarized above, the EPA is finalizing our determination that the Eastern San Luis Obispo ozone NAA has attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2016. The EPA is making this determination based on complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2013-2015 monitoring period. As a result of this determination, the Eastern San Luis Obispo 2008 ozone NAA will not be reclassified to a higher classification for the 2008 ozone standard.
This action is a determination based on air quality data and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 21, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(i)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Tennessee through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) on April 19, 2013. Tennessee's April 19, 2013, SIP revision (Progress Report) addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that require each state to submit periodic reports describing progress towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing SIP addressing regional haze (regional haze plan). EPA is approving Tennessee's Progress Report on the basis that it addresses the progress report and adequacy determination requirements for the first implementation period for regional haze.
This rule will be effective January 20, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0799. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached by phone at (404) 562-9031 and via electronic mail at
Under the Regional Haze Rule,
On April 24, 2012, EPA finalized a limited approval of Tennessee's April 4, 2008, regional haze plan as meeting some of the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-51.308.
Each state is also required to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and for each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state.
On April 19, 2013, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(g), TDEC submitted to EPA, in the form of a revision to Tennessee's SIP, a report on progress made towards the RPGs for Class I areas in the State and for Class I areas outside the State that are affected by emissions from sources within the State. This submission also includes a negative declaration pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1) that the State's regional haze plan is sufficient in meeting the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule.
In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on September 28, 2016 (81 FR 66596), EPA proposed to approve Tennessee's Progress Report on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h). No comments were received on the September 28, 2016, proposed rulemaking. The details of Tennessee's submittal and the rationale for EPA's action is further explained in the NPRM.
EPA is finalizing approval of Tennessee's Regional Haze Progress Report SIP revision, submitted by the State on April 19, 2013, as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 21, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to determine that the Mariposa County, California Moderate Nonattainment Area (NAA) has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or “standards”). This determination is based on complete, quality-assured and certified data for 2013-2015. Preliminary data for 2016 are consistent with continued attainment of the standards in the Mariposa County NAA. This determination suspends any unfulfilled obligations to submit revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP) related to attainment of the 2008 ozone standards for the Mariposa County NAA for as long as the area continues to meet those standards.
This rule is effective on February 21, 2017 without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comments by January 20, 2017. If the EPA receives such comments, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0669 at
Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3848,
Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
The Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) requires the EPA to establish national primary and secondary standards for certain widespread pollutants, such as ozone, that cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
The EPA designated NAAs for the 2008 ozone standard on May 21, 2012, effective July 20, 2012 (77 FR 30088). In that action, the EPA classified (by operation of law) the Mariposa County, California
In May 2016, the EPA determined that the Mariposa County NAA failed to attain the 2008 ozone standard by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2015, and reclassified the area to the next higher classification,
Under the provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, if the EPA issues a determination that an area is attaining the relevant standard, also known as a Clean Data Determination, the requirements for such area to submit attainment demonstrations and associated RACM, RFP plans, contingency measures and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS are suspended until such time as the area is redesignated to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. However, if the EPA later determines, through notice-and-comment rulemaking, that the area has again violated the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the area is again required to submit such plans.
A determination of whether an area's air quality meets the 2008 ozone NAAQS is generally based upon three consecutive calendar years of complete, quality-assured data measured at established State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in the NAA and entered into the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database. Data from ambient air monitoring sites operated by state or local agencies in compliance with EPA monitoring requirements must be submitted to AQS. Heads of monitoring agencies annually certify that these data are accurate to the best of their knowledge. Accordingly, the EPA relies primarily on data in AQS when determining the attainment status of an area.
The 2008 ozone standard is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the design value is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts (“districts”) operate ambient air monitoring stations throughout the State of California. CARB is the lead monitoring agency in the Primary Quality Assurance Organization (PQAO) that includes all the monitoring agencies in the State with a few exceptions.
Within the Mariposa County ozone nonattainment area, there is one ozone SLAMS (referred to as the Jerseydale site) that is operated by CARB, and one SLAMS (referred to as the Turtleback Dome site in Yosemite National Park) that is operated by the National Park Service (NPS). The ozone monitoring site operated by NPS at Turtleback Dome is one of many sites throughout the U.S. and Canada that comprise the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET).
All state and local air monitoring agencies are required to submit annual monitoring network plans to the EPA.
Since 2007, the EPA has regularly reviewed these annual monitoring network plans for compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 58. With respect to ozone, the EPA found that the area's annual monitoring network plans meet the applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 58.
The EPA also concluded from its Technical System Audit of the CARB PQAO (conducted during Summer 2015), that the combined ambient air monitoring network operated by CARB currently meets or exceeds the requirements for the minimum number of SLAMS for the 2008 ozone standard.
CARB oversees the quality assurance of all data collected within the CARB PQAO. Also, CARB annually certifies that the data it submits to AQS are
As noted above, there are two ozone SLAMS monitoring sites operating within the Mariposa County NAA. These sites monitor ozone concentrations on a continuous basis using EPA reference or equivalent methods.
Lastly, consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, the EPA has reviewed the quality-assured and certified ozone ambient air monitoring data, as recorded in AQS for the applicable monitoring period, collected at the monitoring sites in the Mariposa County NAA for completeness. The EPA has determined that the data are complete.
As noted above, the applicable attainment date for the Mariposa County ozone NAA is July 20, 2018; however, we have reviewed the data collected at the two monitoring sites within that area during the most recent three-year period (2013-2015) to determine whether the area has already attained the 2008 ozone standard. Table 1 shows the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations for 2013 through 2015 at both sites in the Mariposa County ozone NAA and shows the design values for 2013-2015. The design value for a given area is based on the monitoring site in the area with the highest design value. In this case, the design value for 2013-2015 for the Mariposa County ozone NAA is at the Jerseydale site and is 0.075 ppm, which is equal to the standard (
With this determination that the Mariposa County ozone NAA has attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the obligation on the State of California to submit SIP revisions related to attainment of the 2008 ozone standard in Mariposa County, including but not limited to SIP revisions demonstrating attainment and RFP, is suspended until such time as Mariposa County is redesignated to attainment for the 2008 ozone standard, at which time the requirements no longer apply. However, if the EPA determines, through notice-and-comment rulemaking, that Mariposa County has once again violated the 2008 ozone NAAQS, then the area is again required to submit the attainment-related SIP revisions.
This final determination of attainment for the Mariposa County NAA does not constitute a redesignation to attainment. Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), redesignations to attainment require states to meet a number of additional statutory criteria, including EPA's approval of a SIP revision demonstrating maintenance of the standard for 10 years after redesignation. The designation status of the Mariposa County area will remain Moderate nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS until such time as the EPA determines that the area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment.
The EPA is taking direct final action to determine that the Mariposa County Moderate ozone NAA has attained the 2008 ozone standard based on complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2013-2015 monitoring period. Preliminary data for 2016 are consistent with continued attainment of the standard in the Mariposa County NAA. Upon the effective date of this determination, the requirements for the Mariposa County NAA to submit planning SIPs related to attainment of the standard are suspended until the area is redesignated or the EPA determines that the area has violated the standard, at which time the area would again be required to submit such plans.
We do not think anyone will object to this determination, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this
This action makes a determination based on air quality data and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, the action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP obligations discussed herein do not apply to Indian tribes, and thus this action will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 21, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of Nitrogen, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(j)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving most elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from Massachusetts regarding the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997 ozone, 2008 lead (Pb), 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide
This rule is effective on January 20, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0720. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109-3912; (617) 918-1046;
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. The term “the Commonwealth” refers to the state of Massachusetts.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
On July 20, 2016 (81 FR 47133), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Massachusetts which proposed approval of most elements of SIP submissions from the Commonwealth regarding the infrastructure requirements of the CAA for the 1997 ozone, 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
In the above table, the key is as follows:
The specific requirements of ISIPs and the rationale for EPA's proposed actions on the Commonwealth's submittals are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.
EPA is approving most portions of Massachusetts ISIP submittals for the 1997 ozone, 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
Additionally, EPA is conditionally approving three portions of these submittals. First, for the five NAAQS listed within Table 1 we are conditionally approving an aspect of the Commonwealth's submittals for element 110(a)(2)(A) pertaining to ambient air quality standards because the current, SIP-approved version of 310 CMR 7.00,
As noted within Table 1 of this final rulemaking notice, we are also making findings of failure to submit for the aspects of the Commonwealth's ISIPs noted within CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), J(i), and J(iii). These findings relate to inadequacies with Massachusetts' program for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), and are elaborated on within our July 20, 2016 NPR. As mentioned in our proposed rulemaking, the Commonwealth is subject to a PSD Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), and has implemented and enforced the federal PSD program through a delegation agreement. See 76 FR 31241; May 31, 2011. Therefore, our findings of failure to submit will not trigger any additional FIP obligation by the EPA under section 110(c)(1), because the deficiency is addressed by the FIP already in place. Moreover, the state is not subject to mandatory sanctions solely as a result of this finding, because the SIP submittal deficiencies are neither with respect to a sub-element that is required under part D nor in response to a SIP call under section 110(k)(5) of the Act.
Furthermore, as proposed, we are incorporating into the Massachusetts SIP sections 6 and 6A of the state's Conflict of Interest law, which the Commonwealth submitted on June 6, 2014, and are removing 40 CFR 52.1160 regarding Massachusetts Low Emission Vehicle program in that this section is legally obsolete.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of M.G.L c. 268A, sections 6 and 6A of the Commonwealth's Conflict of Interest law submitted to EPA on June 6, 2014, as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 21, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (see section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a) * * *
(3) Massachusetts submitted an infrastructure State Implementation Plan (ISIP) for the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) on December 14, 2007, submitted an ISIP for the 2008 Pb NAAQS on December 4, 2012, and submitted ISIPs for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
(4) Massachusetts submitted an infrastructure State Implementation Plan (ISIP) for the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) on December 14, 2007, submitted an ISIP for the 2008 Pb NAAQS on December 4, 2012, and submitted ISIPs for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
(5) Massachusetts submitted an infrastructure State Implementation Plan (ISIP) for the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) on December 14, 2007, and submitted ISIPs for the 2008 ozone and 2010 SO
(c) * * *
(145) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection on December 14, 2007. The submittal consists of an Infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standard.
(146) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection on December 4, 2012. The submittal consists of an Infrastructure SIP for the 2008 lead national ambient air quality standard.
(147) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection on June 6, 2014. The submittal consists of Infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Section 6, “Financial interest of state employee, relative, or associates; disclosure,” of the Massachusetts General Laws Annotated, chapter 268A, “Conduct of Public Officials and Employees,” as amended by Statute 1978, chapter 210, § 9.
(B) Section 6A, “Conflict of interest of public officials; reporting requirement,” of the Massachusetts General Laws Annotated, chapter 268A, “Conduct of Public Officials and Employees,” as amended by Statute 1984, chapter 189, § 163.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finding that the Columbus, Ohio area is attaining the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) and redesignating the area to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS because the area meets the statutory requirements for redesignation under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). The Columbus area includes Delaware, Fairfield, Knox, Licking, and Mason Counties. EPA is also approving, as a revision to the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP), the state's plan for maintaining the 2008 ozone standard through 2030 in the Columbus area. Finally, EPA finds adequate and is approving the state's 2020 and 2030 volatile organic compound (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
This final rule is effective December 21, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0372. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-1767,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
This rule takes action on the June 16, 2016, submission from Ohio EPA requesting redesignation of the Columbus area to attainment for the 2008 ozone standard. The background for today's action is discussed in detail in EPA's proposal, dated September 28, 2016 (81 FR 66578). In that rulemaking, we noted that, under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 ozone NAAQS is attained in an area when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration is equal to or less than 0.075 ppm, when truncated after the thousandth decimal place, at all of the ozone monitoring sites in the area. (
As discussed in the proposed rule, quality-assured and certified monitoring data for 2013-2015 and preliminary data for 2016 show that the Columbus area has attained and continues to attain the 2008 ozone standard. In the maintenance plan submitted for the area, Ohio has demonstrated that the ozone standard will be maintained in the area through 2030. Finally, Ohio has adopted 2020 and 2030 VOC and NO
EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period for the September 28, 2016, proposed rule. The comment
EPA is determining that the Columbus nonattainment area is attaining the 2008 ozone standard, based on quality-assured and certified monitoring data for 2013-2015 and that the Ohio portion of this area has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus changing the legal designation of the Columbus area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 ozone standard. EPA is also approving, as a revision to the Ohio SIP, the state's maintenance plan for the area. The maintenance plan is designed to keep the Columbus area in attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS through 2030. Finally, EPA finds adequate and is approving the newly-established 2020 and 2030 MVEBs for the Columbus area.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause for these actions to become effective immediately upon publication. This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the area from certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,” and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule relieves the state of planning requirements for this ozone nonattainment area. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for these actions to become effective on the date of publication of these actions.
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on tribes, impact any existing sources of air pollution on tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance of ozone national ambient air quality standards in tribal lands.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 21, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Designations and
Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(pp) * * *
(2) Approval—On June 16, 2016, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency submitted a request to redesignate the Columbus area to attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As part of the redesignation request, the State submitted a maintenance plan as required by section 175A of the Clean Air Act. Elements of the section 175 maintenance plan include a contingency plan and an obligation to submit a subsequent maintenance plan revision in eight years as required by the Clean Air Act. The 2020 motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Columbus area are 50.66 tons per summer day (TPSD) for VOC and 90.54 TPSD for NO
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) provides EPA with several authorities for addressing risks from chemical substances and includes procedures that EPA must follow in doing so. EPA promulgated regulations shortly after TSCA was enacted to implement the procedural requirements for rulemaking under TSCA section 6 as they existed at that time. TSCA was recently amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. This final rule removes the regulations specifying certain procedural requirements for rulemaking under TSCA section 6, including the requirement for a hearing, because TSCA, as amended, no longer mandates those procedures.
This final rule is effective December 21, 2016.
Cindy Wheeler, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-0484; email address:
The authority for this action is TSCA section 6, as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (15 U.S.C. 2605).
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), provides that “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” are exempt from notice and comment requirements. This action involves revisions to the rules that set out the general rulemaking procedure for EPA under the prior version of TSCA, and the action does not affect the substance of any determinations EPA will make under the amended TSCA section 6. Accordingly, these revisions fall under the exemption provided in APA section 553(b)(3)(A), and the EPA is not taking comment on this action.
This action affects only Agency procedure in future rulemakings under TSCA section 6 and has no particular applicability to the public. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action, consult the person listed under
This action removes 40 CFR part 750, subpart A (the general procedural requirements for rulemaking under TSCA section 6, including the requirement for a hearing). Subpart A detailed hearing-related procedures as well as the content and timing of EPA's notices and the Agency's record. This action also removes the similar provisions from the procedural rules in subparts B and C for exemptions from the prohibitions in TSCA section 6(e) applicable to polychlorinated biphenyls.
TSCA, enacted in 1976, was intended to provide EPA with the tools necessary to develop information and manage risks associated with chemicals in commerce. TSCA section 6(a) requires EPA to take action to address unreasonable risks that EPA determines are presented by chemical substances or mixtures. Under TSCA section 6 as enacted in 1976, if EPA had a reasonable basis to conclude that the manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of a chemical substance or mixture presented an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, EPA would have to by rule apply requirements to the substance or mixture to the extent necessary to address the unreasonable risk using the least burdensome requirement. These requirements could include prohibitions or limitations on manufacturing processing, distribution in commerce, commercial use, or disposal; marking (labeling) requirements; and recordkeeping requirements. This section of TSCA also established certain procedures that EPA would have to follow in promulgating such rules. As enacted in 1976, TSCA section 6(c) required, among other things, that EPA provide the opportunity for an informal hearing and that EPA make certain findings and publish certain statements.
EPA published final procedural regulations to implement the TSCA section 6 procedural requirements shortly thereafter in the
On June 22, 2016, the President signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act into law. This legislation amends many sections of TSCA, including TSCA section 6. While the new law still directs EPA to take action against unreasonable risks presented by chemical substances or mixtures, EPA's duties under TSCA section 6 have been significantly modified to include specific deadlines and procedures for prioritizing chemicals for risk evaluations, conducting the risk evaluations and promulgating regulations to address unreasonable risks that are identified. Notably, once unreasonable risks have been identified through a risk evaluation, TSCA section 6(c)(1) now requires EPA to issue a proposed rule to address the risks no later than one year after the final risk evaluation is published, and the final rule must be issued no later than two years after the final risk evaluation is published, subject to the limited extension authorized by TSCA section 6(c)(1)(C).
After reviewing 40 CFR part 750 in light of the amendments to TSCA, EPA has determined that the procedural regulations in subpart A do not facilitate the efficient administrative process envisioned by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Subpart A was principally promulgated to provide further details related to the informal hearing process under TSCA as originally enacted. However, with the statutory amendments' removal of the informal hearing requirement and addition of ambitious deadlines for action under section 6, subpart A is particularly outdated and no longer designed for effective implementation of section 6. To the extent subpart A simply reflected administrative requirements of TSCA and the Administrative Procedure Act, the current version of TSCA and the Administrative Procedure Act will continue to apply on their own terms, and section 6 of TSCA as amended prescribes considerably more procedure than the previous version of TSCA. To the extent subpart A goes beyond the current statutory requirements of such law, EPA believes that the layering of additional procedural requirements by regulation is both unnecessary to ensure a transparent rulemaking process with robust public participation and not well-suited to the rapid throughput required by the law. EPA also believes the requirements are in some respects outdated with respect to current technology. The remainder of this notice elaborates on these points.
First, regarding the hearing-related provisions of 40 CFR part 750, TSCA section 6, as amended, no longer requires EPA to provide an opportunity for an informal hearing on a proposed rule. After TSCA was amended on June 22, 2016 and before this final rule, 40 CFR part 750 inaccurately referred to “the informal hearing required by section 6(c)(2)(C) of TSCA” when, in fact, TSCA section 6 no longer requires EPA to provide an opportunity for informal hearing and TSCA section 6(c)(2)(C) in particular now refers to another topic. Given that EPA is no longer required to provide an opportunity for an informal hearing on a proposed rule under TSCA section 6, and that the statutory citations in the hearing-related regulations are no longer correct, much of 40 CFR part 750 is no longer needed or appropriate.
Moreover, by establishing a two-year deadline for final rules after unreasonable risks are identified through risk evaluation, Congress expressed an intention for EPA to move relatively quickly to address unreasonable risks. Although Congress also established a limited process by which EPA could extend this deadline, EPA does not believe that Congress intended for extended deadlines to be a routine occurrence. The cumbersome nature of the informal hearing-related provisions established in 40 CFR part 750 would make it difficult for EPA to meet the newly-established rulemaking deadlines.
Yet EPA does not interpret the removal of the hearing requirement as an indication that reduced public input is desired. To the contrary, the amended TSCA section 6 specifically requires public comment periods at several stages during the chemical prioritization, risk evaluation, and risk management processes. EPA interprets the removal of the informal hearing requirement as being motivated by Congressional intent to simplify and thereby quicken the pace of TSCA section 6 rulemaking, considering the establishment of new rulemaking deadlines and the manner in which the tools for managing EPA's administrative rulemaking process have evolved over the 40 years since TSCA was enacted (
Next, while EPA must still consider and publish a statement on certain factors when promulgating a rule under TSCA section 6(a), the factors have changed. For example, TSCA section 6(c) as originally enacted required EPA to consider and publish a statement with respect to the availability of substitutes for various uses of a chemical substance or mixture. TSCA section 6(c) as amended requires EPA to, in deciding whether to prohibit or restrict a chemical substance or mixture in a manner that substantially prevents a specific condition of use, and in setting an appropriate transition period for such chemical substance or mixture, consider, to the extent practicable, whether technically and economically feasible alternatives that benefit health or the environment will be reasonably available as a substitute when the proposed prohibition or other restriction takes effect. Therefore, EPA is removing the outdated specification of the content and timing of EPA notices in 40 CFR part 750, subpart A, and instead EPA's notices in future section 6 rulemakings will conform to TSCA as amended.
As EPA noted in 1987 (52 FR 23054), the initiation of a section 6 proceeding could be by proposed rule, advance notice of proposed rulemaking, or notice of other appropriate action. The agency is not changing its position on this matter by removing 40 CFR 750.2(a). As the agency stated previously, “Federal courts have acknowledged that rulemaking commences before the publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking. See, for example,
Lastly, modern electronic tools and remote conferencing were not available when TSCA was enacted nor when procedural requirements under 40 CFR part 750 regarding Agency records were promulgated by EPA. EPA believes that it is now reasonable and prudent to use its information resources, including information technology, to establish an electronic record to contain rulemaking documents being considered and public comments submitted, a possibility not anticipated by the outdated record provisions. Consistent with TSCA section 2's expression of Congressional intent that EPA carry out TSCA in a reasonable and prudent manner, and in consideration of the environmental, economic, and social impacts that any action taken under TSCA may have, (15 U.S.C. 2601), electronic correspondence can reduce burden and costs for the regulated entities by eliminating the costs associated with printing and mailing documents, and traveling to hearings, while at the same time improving EPA's efficiency in reviewing public comments, making decisions, and disseminating information to the public.
Therefore, after considering the points discussed earlier in this notice, EPA is removing the general TSCA section 6 procedural requirements contained in subpart A of 40 CFR part 750. EPA is not making any changes to the procedures contained in subparts B and C of 40 CFR part 750 for petitions for exemptions from the prohibitions in TSCA section 6(e), other than to remove references to the informal hearing-related procedures as well as the content and timing of EPA's notices and the Agency's record corresponding to the removal of subpart A.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action does not contain any information collection activities that require approval under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
This action is not subject to the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it merely removes procedural requirements that the Agency must follow when conducting rulemaking under TSCA section 6. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve any technical standards, and is therefore not subject to considerations under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note.
This action does not establish an environmental health or safety standard, and is therefore not is not subject to environmental justice considerations under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This regulatory action is a procedural change and does not have any impact on human health or the environment.
This rule is exempt from the CRA (5 U.S.C. 801
Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Environmental protection, Hazardous substances.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2605.
Sections 750.10-750.15 apply to all rulemakings under authority of section 6(e)(3)(B) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(3)(B) with respect to petitions filed pursuant to § 750.11(a).
Rulemaking for PCB exemptions filed pursuant to § 750.11(a) shall begin with the publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
(a) [Reserved]
(b) EPA will grant or deny petitions under TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B) submitted pursuant to § 750.11.
(c) In determining whether to grant an exemption to the PCB ban, the Agency shall apply the two standards enunciated in TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B).
Sections 750.30 through 750.35 apply to all rulemakings under authority of section 6(e)(3)(B) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(3)(B) with respect to petitions for PCB processing and distribution in commerce exemptions filed pursuant to § 750.31(a).
Rulemaking for PCB exemptions filed pursuant to § 750.31(a) shall begin with the publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
(a) [Reserved]
(b) EPA will grant or deny petitions under TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B) submitted pursuant to § 750.31.
(c) In determining whether to grant an exemption to the PCB ban, EPA will apply the two standards enunciated in TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B).
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Implementation of list and phases.
This document announces the implementation of the prior authorization program for certain durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS) items in two phases and the issuance of the initial Required Prior Authorization List of DMEPOS items that require prior authorization as a condition of payment.
Phase one of implementation is effective on March 20, 2017. Phase two of implementation is effective on July 17, 2017.
Sections 1832, 1834, and 1861 of the Social Security Act (the Act) establish that the provision of durable medical equipment, prosthetic, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS) is a covered benefit under Part B of the Medicare program.
Section 1834(a)(15) of the Act authorizes the Secretary to develop and periodically update a list of DMEPOS items that the Secretary determines, on the basis of prior payment experience, are frequently subject to unnecessary utilization and to develop a prior authorization process for these items.
In the December 30, 2015 final rule (80 FR 81674), titled “Medicare Program; Prior Authorization Process for Certain Durable Medical Equipment,
++ Appear on the DMEPOS Fee Schedule list.
++ Have an average purchase fee of $1,000 or greater (adjusted annually for inflation) or an average monthly rental fee schedule of $100 or greater (adjusted annually for inflation). (These dollar amounts are referred to as the payment threshold).
++ Meet either of the following criteria:
—Identified in a Government Accountability Office (GAO) or Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) report that is national in scope and published in 2007 or later as having a high rate of fraud or unnecessary utilization.
—Listed in the 2011 or later Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) program's Annual Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) Improper Payment Rate Report and/or the Supplementary Appendices for the Medicare Fee-for-Service Improper Payments Report.
In the December 30, 2015 final rule (80 FR 81689), we stated that we would inform the public of those DMEPOS items on the Required Prior Authorization List in the
The following two DMEPOS items, represented by HCPCS (Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System) codes K0856 and K0861 are added to the Required Prior Authorization List:
• K0856 HCPCS: Power wheelchair, group 3 standard, single power option, sling/solid seat/back, patient weight capacity up to and including 300 pounds.
• K0861 HCPCS: Power wheelchair, group 3 standard, multiple power option, sling/solid seat/back, patient weight capacity up to and including 300 pounds.
Power wheelchairs, represented by HCPCS codes K0856 and K0861, will be subject to the requirements of the prior authorization program for certain DMEPOS items as outlined in § 414.234. (We note that these Group 3 power wheelchairs are not part of the separate Prior Authorization of Power Mobility Devices (PMDs) Demonstration.)
We will implement a national prior authorization program for K0856 and K0861 in two phases, as specified in the
In phase one of implementation, which begins as specified in the
Prior to furnishing the item to the beneficiary and prior to submitting the claim for processing, a requester must submit a prior authorization request that includes evidence that the item complies with all applicable Medicare coverage, coding, and payment rules. Consistent with § 414.234(d), such evidence must include the order, relevant information from the beneficiary's medical record, and relevant supplier-produced documentation. After receipt of all applicable required Medicare documentation, CMS or one of its review contractors will conduct a medical review and communicate a decision that provisionally affirms or non-affirms the request.
We will issue specific prior authorization guidance in subregulatory communications, including final timelines, which are customized for the DMEPOS item subject to prior authorization, for communicating a provisionally affirmed or non-affirmed decision to the requester. In the December 30, 2015 final rule, we stated that this approach to final timelines provides flexibility to develop a process that involves fewer days, as may be appropriate, and allows us to safeguard beneficiary access to care. If at any time we become aware that the prior authorization process is creating barriers to care, we can suspend the program.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of applicability date.
In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years for fixed broadband Internet access service (3060-1158) and for a period of two years for mobile broadband Internet access service (3060-1220), the information collections associated with the transparency rule enhancements adopted by the Commission in
The modified information collection requirements contained in paragraphs 164, 166, 167, 169, 173, 174, 179, 180, and 181, published at 80 FR 19737, April 13, 2015, are applicable January 17, 2017 for fixed broadband Internet access service. The modified information collection requirements, except for disclosure of packet loss, contained in paragraphs 164, 166, 167, 169, 173, 174, 179, 180, and 181, published at 80 FR 19737, April 13, 2015, are applicable January 17, 2017 for mobile broadband Internet access service.
John B. Adams, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-2854, or email:
This document announces that, on December 15, 2016, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to the enhancements to the transparency rule in paragraphs 164, 166, 167, 169, 173, 174, 179, 180, and 181 of 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 December 15, 2016, for the information collection requirements relating to the enhancements to the transparency rule contained in paragraphs 164, 166, 167, 169, 173, 174, 179, 180, and 181 of the Commission's
During OMB's review of the modified information collection, it determined that the mobile broadband disclosures were at a different stage than the fixed broadband disclosures and should therefore be approved for two years, with conditions, rather than the three year approval, without conditions, for fixed broadband. OMB therefore issued Control No. 3060-1220 for Transparency Rule Disclosures, Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, GN Docket No. 14-28, FCC 15-24 (Mobile Broadband Disclosures) and Control No. 3060-1158 for Transparency Rule Disclosures, Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, GN Docket No. 14-28, FCC 15-24 (Fixed Broadband Disclosures). Although there is a separate collection for mobile broadband disclosures, the FCC is reporting an identical burden estimate for the calculation and disclosure of broadband performance data by both fixed and mobile broadband providers, which was subject to public review and comment. Under 5 CFR 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 for fixed broadband Internet access service is 3060-1158. The OMB Control Number for mobile broadband Internet access service is 3060-1220.
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:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), are amending the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List) by removing the current species-level listing of the humpback whale (
This rule is effective December 21, 2016.
Don Morgan, Chief, Branch of Recovery and State Grants, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS-ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; 703-358-2171.
In accordance with the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Under section 4(a)(2)(A) of the Act, if NMFS determines that a species should be listed as endangered or threatened, or that a species' status should be changed from threatened to endangered, then NMFS is required to inform the Service of the status change. The Service is then responsible for implementing the status change by publishing a final rule to amend the appropriate List at 50 CFR 17.11(h) or 17.12(h). Under section 4(a)(2)(B) of the Act, if NMFS determines that a species should be removed from the List (delisted), or that a species' status should be changed from an endangered to a threatened species, then NMFS is required to recommend the status change to the Service. If the Service concurs with the recommended status change, then the Service will implement the status change by publishing a final rule to amend the appropriate List.
On April 21, 2015, NMFS published a proposed rule (80 FR 22304) to remove the species-level listing of the humpback whale (
The removal of the species-level listing and the listing of the five humpback whale DPSs were applicable as of October 11, 2016. In the September 8, 2016, final rule (81 FR 62260), NMFS addressed all public comments received in response to the proposed rule. NMFS reconsidered its proposals with regard to the Western North Pacific, Mexico, and Central America DPSs, listing the Western North Pacific and Central America DPSs as endangered instead of threatened as proposed and listing the Mexico DPS as threatened instead of not listing it.
For the Western North Pacific DPS, NMFS considered the relatively low, slightly revised abundance estimate (1,059 instead of 1,100); the moderate reduction of its population size or growth rate likely from energy development, competition with fisheries, whaling, and vessel collisions; the serious reduction of its population size or growth rate likely from fishing gear entanglements; and the considerable uncertainty reflected in the distribution of Biological Review Team (BRT) votes in assigning extinction risk categories.
For the Mexico DPS, NMFS considered the revised abundance estimate that is significantly lower than previously thought (3,264 instead of 6,000-7,000) and the presence of the known fishing gear entanglement threat of moderate intensity.
For the Central America DPS, NMFS considered the original low abundance estimate of 500-600 (which was at the dividing line between BRT risk categories) and the more recently updated estimate of 411 (which is below the BRT's threshold of 500 between “high risk of extinction” and “moderate risk of extinction”), the fact that the moderate threats of vessel collisions and fishing gear entanglement continue to act upon a population that is so small, and the considerable uncertainty reflected in the distribution of BRT votes for different extinction risk categories.
As discussed under the
Because humpback whales that make up some of the identified DPSs of humpback whale will no longer be protected under the Act and whales in one DPS are considered threatened rather than endangered, both section 4(a)(2)(A) and section 4(a)(2)(B) of the Act apply to our responsibility to implement the status changes by publishing a final rule to amend the List at 50 CFR 17.11(h).
In a September 6, 2016, memorandum (Memorandum from Gary Frazer to Donna Wieting, September 6, 2016), per section 4(a)(2)(B), we concur with NMFS's recommendation that humpback whales in nine DPSs are no longer endangered or threatened species and that whales in the Mexico DPS are now a threatened species rather than an endangered species. By publishing this final rule, we are taking the necessary administrative step to codify these changes in the List at 50 CFR 17.11(h).
Because NMFS provided a public comment period on the proposed rule for the humpback whale, and we concur with NMFS' actions, we find good cause that the notice and public comment procedures of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary for this action. We also find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective immediately. The NMFS rule (81 FR 62260; September 8, 2016) revised the listing status of the humpback whale, extending protection under the Act to five DPSs and listing them at 50 CFR parts 223 and 224; this rule is an administrative action to add those DPSs to the List at 50 CFR 17.11(h). The public would not be served by delaying the effective date of this rulemaking action.
We have determined that an environmental assessment, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule and Referendum Order.
This rule proposes an amendment to Marketing Order No. 929 (order), which regulates the handling of cranberries grown in the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York. The amendment is based on a proposal made by the Cranberry Marketing Committee (Committee), which is responsible for the local administration of the order. The amendment would authorize the Committee to receive and expend voluntary contributions from domestic sources. Contributed funds would be used solely for research and development activities authorized under the order and would be free from any encumbrances as to their usage by the donor.
The referendum will be conducted from January 23, 2017 through February 13, 2017. The representative period for the purpose of the referendum is September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2016.
Abdullah Orozco, Marketing Specialist, or Michelle P. Sharrow, Rulemaking Branch Chief, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
This proposal is issued under Marketing Order and Agreement No. 929, as amended (7 CFR part 929), regulating the handling of cranberries grown in the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York. The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” Section 608c(17) of the Act and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900) authorizes amendment of the order through this informal rulemaking action.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule shall not be deemed to preclude, preempt, or supersede any State programs covering cranberries grown in the production area unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed no later than 20 days after the date of entry of the ruling.
Section 1504 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 110-246) amended section 18c(17) of the Act, which in turn required the addition of supplemental rules of practice to 7 CFR part 900 (73 FR 49307; August 21, 2008). The amendment of section 18c(17) of the Act and additional supplemental rules of practice authorize the use of informal rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 553) to amend Federal fruit, vegetable, and nut marketing agreements and orders. USDA may use informal rulemaking to amend marketing orders based on the nature and complexity of the proposed amendments, the potential regulatory and economic impacts on affected entities, and any other relevant matters.
AMS has considered these factors and has determined that the amendment proposed is not unduly complex and the nature of the proposed amendment is appropriate for utilizing the informal rulemaking process to amend the order.
The proposed amendment was unanimously recommended by the Committee following deliberations at a public meeting held August 17-18, 2015.
A proposed rule soliciting comments on the proposed amendment was issued on July 27, 2016, and published in the
The Committee's proposed amendment would amend the marketing order by authorizing the Committee to receive and expend voluntary contributions from domestic sources for research and development activities.
This proposal would add a new section, § 929.43, Contributions, to the order. If implemented, this section
Currently, program operations are solely financed through assessments collected from handlers regulated under the order. Sources not subject to the order have expressed an interest in supporting many of the research and development projects currently funded by the order. However, without the ability to accept financial contributions, the Committee has had to decline these offers. This proposal would provide authority to accept financial contributions. With the potential for additional funding, more research and development projects could be undertaken.
For the reasons stated above, it is proposed that § 929.43, Contributions, be added to provide authority to accept voluntary financial contributions.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
Based on Committee data, there are approximately 1,200 cranberry growers in the regulated area and approximately 45 cranberry handlers who are subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), grower prices were $30.90 per barrel for cranberries during the 2014-15 marketing year. NASS also reported total bearing acres at 40,600 and average yield per acre at 10.3 tons for the 2014-15 marketing year.
Based on the total bearing acres provided by NASS and the approximate number of cranberry growers (1,200 growers), the average acreage per grower is 33.8 acres. Multiplying the average acreage per grower (33.8 acres) by the average yield per acre (10.3 tons) results in an average production of 348.5 tons. To convert the average production from tons to barrels, 348.5 tons is multiplied by 2,000 pounds (one ton equals 2,000 pounds) to equal 696,966.7 pounds and is then divided by 100 (100 pounds equals 1 barrel), resulting in an average production per growers of 6,969.7 barrels.
Multiplying the average production (6,967.7 barrels) by the grower price ($30.90 per barrel), provided by NASS, equals an average grower revenue of $215,301.90. Based on this calculation, the average annual grower revenue for the 2014-15 marketing year was below $750,000.
Using Committee information and shipment data, the majority of cranberry handlers could also be considered small businesses under SBA's definition. Therefore, the majority of cranberry growers and handlers may be classified as small entities under SBA definitions.
The amendment proposed by the Committee would add a new section, § 929.43, Contributions, to the order. If implemented, this section would authorize the Committee to accept voluntary financial contributions. Such contributions could only be accepted from domestic sources and would be free from any encumbrances or restrictions on their use by the donor. When received, the Committee would retain complete control of their use. The use of contributed funds would be limited to funding program activities authorized under § 929.45, Research and development.
The Committee's proposed amendment was unanimously recommended at a public meeting on August 17-18, 2015.
If the proposal is approved in referendum, there would be no direct financial effect on growers or handlers. This proposal would provide authority to accept financial contributions. With the potential for additional funding, more research and promotional projects could be undertaken. Therefore, it is anticipated that both small and large producer and handler businesses would benefit from its implementation.
Alternatives to this proposal, including making no changes at this time, were considered. However, the Committee believes it would be beneficial to authorize contributions from domestic sources which would help support research and promotional activities.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, “Generic Fruit Crops.” No changes in those requirements as a result of this action would be necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the cranberry production area. All interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and encouraged to participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the August 17-18, 2015, meeting was public, and all entities, both large and small, were encouraged to express their views on this proposal.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
The findings and conclusions and general findings and determinations included in the proposed rule set forth in the August 4, 2016, issue of the
Annexed hereto and made a part hereof is the document entitled “Order Amending the Order Regulating the Handling of cranberries grown in the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York.” This document has been decided upon as the detailed and appropriate means of effectuating the foregoing findings and conclusions. It is hereby ordered, that this entire rule be published in the
It is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted in accordance with the procedure for the conduct of referenda (7 CFR part 900.400-407) to determine whether the annexed order amending the order regulating the handling of cranberries grown in the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York is approved by growers, as defined under the terms of the order, who during the representative period were engaged in the production of cranberries in the production area. The representative period for the conduct of such referendum is hereby determined to be September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2016.
The agents of the Secretary to conduct such referendum are designated to be Doris Jamieson and Christian D. Nissen, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 325-8793, or Email:
Cranberries, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The findings hereinafter set forth are supplementary to the findings and determinations which were previously made in connection with the issuance of the marketing order; and all said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and affirmed, except insofar as such findings and determinations may be in conflict with the findings and determinations set forth herein.
1. The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
2. The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, regulates the handling of cranberries grown in the States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York in the same manner as, and are applicable only to, persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity specified in the marketing order;
3. The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, is limited in application to the smallest regional production area which is practicable, consistent with carrying out the declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several orders applicable to subdivisions of the production area would not effectively carry out the declared policy of the Act;
4. The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, prescribe, insofar as practicable, such different terms applicable to different parts of the production area as are necessary to give due recognition to the differences in the production and marketing of cranberries produced in the production area; and
5. All handling of cranberries produced in the production area as defined in the marketing order is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens, obstructs, or affects such commerce.
The provisions of the proposed marketing order amending the order contained in the proposed rule issued by the Administrator on July 27, 2016, and published in the
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
The Committee may accept voluntary contributions to pay expenses incurred pursuant to § 929.45, Research and development. Such contributions may only be accepted if they are sourced from domestic contributors and are free from any encumbrances or restrictions on their use by the donor. The Cranberry Marketing Committee shall retain complete control of their use.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports that during the assembly of structural elements on some airplanes, lack of established procedures and tools caused boring and torqueing defects to be present at some locations. This proposed AD would require a detailed visual inspection of bore holes for defects, replacement of bolts, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 6, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0116, dated June 16, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The MCAI states:
During the assembly of structural elements on some aeroplanes, lack of established procedures and tools caused boring and torqueing defects to be present at some locations on the foot of frame (FR) 36 and FR39. Dassault Aviation (DA) identified the individual aeroplanes that are potentially affected by this production deficiency. Quality control actions have been implemented to ensure that new aeroplanes, from s/n 183, cannot be affected by this defect.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, would adversely affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires [a detailed visual] inspection of bore holes [for defects] and replacement of bolts at FR36 and FR39 and, depending on findings, accomplishment of a repair.
To address this potential unsafe condition, DA published Service Bulletin (SB) F7X-379 to provide corrective action instructions.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We reviewed Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-379, dated February 29, 2016. The service information describes procedures for a detailed visual inspection of bore holes at FR36 and FR39 for defects, replacement of bolts at FR36 and FR39, and repair. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 41 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repair specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by February 6, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/Ns) 2, 5, and 8 through 182 inclusive; except S/Ns 141, 148, 149, 157, 159, 166, 170, 171, 174, 175, and 177 through 180 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports that during the assembly of structural elements on some airplanes, lack of established procedures and tools caused boring and torqueing defects to be present at some locations on the foot of frame (FR) 36 and FR39. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct defects in the bore holes at FR36 and FR39 that could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable time identified in paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, remove the sheer bolts at FR36 and FR39, left hand and right hand, as identified in Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-379, dated February 29, 2016, and do a detailed visual inspection of the bore holes for defects, in accordance with Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-379, dated February 29, 2016.
(1) For airplanes with S/N 2 and 5: Before exceeding 4,100 flight cycles after the date of release to service after the first C-Check or within 3 months from the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2) For airplanes other than those identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: Before exceeding 4,100 flight cycles since the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the original export certificate of airworthiness or within 3 months from the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any defect is found, before further flight, repair the affected areas, and replace the sheer bolts at FR36 and FR39, in accordance with Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-379, dated February 29, 2016; except where Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-379, dated February 29, 2016, specifies to contact Dassault Aviation for instructions, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
(2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no defect is found, before further flight, replace the sheer bolts at FR36 and FR39, in accordance with Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-379, dated February 29, 2016.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0116, dated June 16, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Embraer S.A. Model EMB-120, -120ER, -120FC, -120QC, and -120RT airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by changes to the airworthiness limitations, which add life-limited landing gear parts not previously identified. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new airworthiness limitations that add life limits for previously unidentified landing gear parts. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 6, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer), Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170—Putim—12227-901 São Jose dos Campos—SP—Brasil; telephone +55 12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax +55 12 3927-7546; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1175; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2016-07-02, dated July 27, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Embraer S.A. Model EMB-120, -120ER, -120FC, -120QC, and -120RT airplanes. The MCAI states:
This [Brazilian] AD was prompted by changes to the Airworthiness Limitation Section of the Maintenance Review Board Report MRB 120-HI-200, which add life-limited landing gear parts not previously identified. We are issuing this [Brazilian] AD to prevent life-limited landing gear parts from being used beyond their safe-life limits, which could lead to collapse of the landing gear.
This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new airworthiness limitations that add life limits for previously unidentified landing gear parts. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We reviewed the following Embraer S.A. service information:
• Temporary Revision (TR) 28-1 to MRB Report 120-HI-200, dated May 17, 2016. This service information adds life-limited landing gear parts not previously identified to the airworthiness limitations section.
• Alert Service Bulletin 120-32-A543, dated July 11, 2016. This service information provides procedures for replacement of affected parts.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 70 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by February 6, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Embraer S.A. Model EMB-120, EMB-120RT, EMB-120ER, EMB-120FC, and EMB-120QC airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by changes to the Airworthiness Limitation Section of the Maintenance Review Board (MRB) Report 120-HI-200, which adds life-limited landing gear parts not previously identified. We are issuing this AD to prevent life-limited landing gear parts from being used beyond their safe-life limits, which could lead to collapse of the landing gear.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the life-limited landing gear parts and the applicable safe-life limits identified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, as specified in Embraer S.A. Temporary Revision (TR) 28-1 to MRB Report 120-HI-200, dated May 17, 2016.
The initial compliance for the replacement of affected parts is specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD. Replace affected parts with serviceable parts, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer S.A. Alert Service Bulletin 120-32-A543, dated July 11, 2016.
(1) Before the applicable safe-life limit identified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD for parts on which the current status is unknown.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane a main landing gear part or nose landing gear part having a part number identified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, if it has reached or exceeded its safe-life limit, or if its current status is unknown.
After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) ANAC AD No.: 2016-07-02, dated July 27, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer), Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170—Putim—12227-901 São Jose dos Campos—SP—BRASIL; telephone +55 12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax +55 12 3927-7546; email
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) seeks to amend its adjudication regulations to add an additional benefit for veterans with residuals of traumatic brain injury (TBI). This benefit was enacted by the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010 and provides special monthly compensation for veterans with TBI who are in need of aid and attendance and, in the absence of such aid and attendance, would require hospitalization, nursing home care, or other residential institutional care. Prior to the law's enactment, veterans with TBI were not eligible for this benefit unless they had a separate service-related disability that qualified under the law.
Comments must be received on or before February 21, 2017.
Written comments may be submitted through
Eric G. Mandle, Policy Analyst, Regulations Staff (211D), Compensation Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-9700. (This is not a toll-free telephone number.)
On October 13, 2010, the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010, Public Law 111-275 (the Act) was signed into law. Section 601 of the Act amends 38 U.S.C. 1114, adding subsection (t) to include special monthly compensation (SMC) for veterans who as the result of service-connected disability, are in need of regular aid and attendance for the residuals of traumatic brain injury (TBI), and in the absence of such regular aid and attendance would require hospitalization, nursing home care, or other residential institutional care. The law grants an additional monetary allowance for veterans with residuals of TBI who require this higher level of care but would not otherwise qualify for the benefit under 38 U.S.C. 1114(r)(2). The amendment became effective October 1, 2011.
VA administers SMC benefits under 38 CFR 3.350. Additionally, 38 CFR
Under this proposed rule, VA will directly implement 38 U.S.C. 1114(t), which states that an additional award of SMC is payable to a veteran who, as the result of service-connected disability, is in need of regular aid and attendance for the residuals of traumatic brain injury, is not eligible for additional compensation under 38 U.S.C. 1114(r)(2), and in the absence of such regular aid and attendance would require hospitalization, nursing home care, or other residential institutional care. VA would also make clear that a veteran entitled to this benefit shall be paid during periods he or she is not hospitalized at United States Government expense as if receiving the amount equal to the compensation authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1114(o) or the maximum rate authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1114(p) and, in addition to such compensation, a monthly allowance equal to the rate described in 38 U.S.C. 1114(r)(2).
VA believes that there are two potential readings of the Act. Under the first, more restrictive reading, a veteran affected by section 1114(t) would receive only the rate noted under 38 U.S.C. 1114(r)(2),
Under the second, more liberal interpretation of section 1114(t), VA would pay veterans who meet the criteria of section 1114(t) the full amount described by section 1114(r) (
VA finds that Congress' intent was to enact a law that pays veterans of this class an amount equal to the compensation authorized under section 1114(o) or the maximum rate authorized under section 1114(p), plus the additional amount described under section 1114(r)(2). VA chose the rates permitted under section 1114(o) and (p) because those are the highest rates permitted under section 1114 and therefore would be the most favorable rates for this group of veterans requiring this higher level of care.
Textually, subsection (r) generally preconditions receipt of the heightened aid and attendance allowance under either subsection (r)(1) or (r)(2) on receipt of one of the predicate rates identified in subsection (r), which include the rates specified in (o) and (p). Additionally, subsection (r) makes clear that a veteran is receiving that heightened allowance “in addition to” the special monthly compensation otherwise described in subsection (r). VA has long interpreted subsection (r) as reflecting the assumption that a veteran is necessarily in receipt of one of the predicate rates described in the body of subsection (r) whenever a veteran is in receipt of the heightened aid and attendance allowance under either subsection (r)(1) or (r)(2). This interpretation is reflected in VA's current regulations.
In support of this interpretation, VA notes that 38 U.S.C. 1114(r)(2) provides additional compensation to those veterans with certain service-connected disabilities who are in need of a higher level of care. The legislative history for section 601 of Public Law 111-275 indicates that subsection (t) is intended to provide additional compensation to veterans with TBI who do not have those qualifying service-connected disabilities and therefore are not otherwise eligible for benefits under (r)(2), but still require a higher level of care comparable to what would otherwise be contemplated by the allowance provided by (r)(2).
VA's interpretation of section 1114(t) would mean that the rate authorized by section 1114(o) and (p) is the “other compensation under this section” referenced in section 1114(t) for purposes of all cases under that section. We acknowledge that this interpretation imports a specfic meaning to the term “other compensation” that is not apparent on the face of that term. We find that this interpretation is warranted because interpreting the phrase “other compensation under this section” to refer only to other compensation for which the veteran independently qualifies would defeat the purpose of the legislation. The legislative history noted that 38 U.S.C. 1114(l) prescribes the basic monthy compensation amount for veterans in need of aid and attendance due to their service-connected disabilities and that section 1114(r)(2) prescribes an “additional” monthly amount payable for veterans in need of a higher level of care. S. Rep. 111-71 at *17. Congress thus recognized that the needs of veterans who qualify for the (r)(2) rate are met by payment of both a basic monthly SMC rate, which generally would be provided under subsections (l) through (p) of section 1114 and the heightened aid and attendance payment under (r)(2). Congress determined that legislation was needed to extend similar benefits to veterans with TBI because the provisions of section 1114 generally focus on physical disabilities and locomotion rather than cognitive or
For the reasons stated in the legislative history, cognitive disability due to TBI generally would not qualify for the basic monthly SMC rates prescribed in section 1114(l)-(p). As a result, if the term “other compensation under this section,” as used in section 1114(t) were construed to mean compensation for which the veteran otherwise qualifies without regard to section 1114(t), a substantial part of the benefits contemplated by (r)(2)—
VA finds the language of the amended statute to be ambiguous, but has determined that Congress intended to provide veterans in need of aid and attendance due to TBI residuals the same level of compensation as veterans entitled to the section 1114(r)(2) rate.
This rulemaking proposes to amend § 3.350 by adding paragraph (j), proposes to amend § 3.352 by adding a new paragraph (b)(2) and revising the authority citation, and proposes to amend § 3.552(b) by adding a reference to 38 U.S.C. 1114(t) to paragraph (b)(2) and revising the authority citation. Proposed paragraph (j) will set forth the general criteria prescribed by 38 U.S.C. 1114(t). Paragraph (j) would reference § 3.352 to provide guidance on determining the need for aid and attendance. Paragraph (j)(1) would provide that a veteran shall be entitled to the amount equal to the compensation authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1114(o) or the maximum rate authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1114(p) and, in addition to such compensation, a monthly allowance equal to the rate described in 38 U.S.C. 1114(r)(2) during periods he or she is not hospitalized at United States Government expense.
In addition, to ensure consistency with current § 3.350(h), VA proposes to reference revised § 3.552(b)(2) under proposed § 3.350(j)(1). Section 3.552(b)(2) requires VA to discontinue the aid and attendance benefit following hospitalization at government expense. Proposed § 3.350(j)(2) would note that an allowance under proposed paragraph (j) would be paid in lieu of any allowance authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1114(r)(1).
Section 3.352 governs the criteria for determining the need for aid and attendance and what is “permanently bedridden” for VA disability compensation purposes. VA proposes to amend § 3.352 to regulate entitlement to a higher level of aid and attendance allowance for residuals of TBI. Specifically, we propose to redesignate paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(5) of § 3.352 as (b)(3) through (b)(6). Paragraph (b)(1)(iii) and newly redesignated paragraph (b)(4) of this section reference (b)(2). As such, those paragraphs would also be revised to reflect that (b)(2) would become (b)(3).
This rulemaking also proposes to add a new paragraph (b)(2) to § 3.352 stating that a veteran is entitled to the higher level of aid and attendance allowance for residuals of TBI, as authorized by § 3.350(j), in lieu of the regular aid and attendance allowance. Entitlement would be found when the veteran meets the requirements for entitlement to the regular aid and attendance allowance in paragraph (a) of the section and when the veteran needs a higher level of care (as defined in redesignated paragraph (b)(3) of the section) than is required to establish entitlement to the regular aid and attendance allowance, and in the absence of the provision of such higher level of care would require hospitalization, nursing home care, or other residential institutional care.
As previously discussed, VA has determined that Congress intended 38 U.S.C. 1114(t) to provide total compensation equal to the total rate paid after factoring total compensation paid in (r)(2) cases, who also receive payment under subsections (o) or (p). VA therefore proposes to apply the same definition of a higher level of care when determining entitlement under proposed § 3.350(j) as VA applies under § 3.350(h). Specifically, VA proposes to require that veterans entitled to SMC under section 1114(t) establish entitlement to the regular aid and attendance allowance in paragraph (a) of § 3.352, as well as establish a requirement for a higher level of care, where, in the absence of the higher level of care, the veteran would require hospitalization, nursing home care, or other residential institutional care. These requirements mirror the current requirements for entitlement under § 3.350(h) and § 3.352(b). We would clarify in § 3.352(b)(2)(i) and (ii) that the need for this higher level of aid and attendance must be as a result of service-connected residuals of traumatic brain injury. This requirement is consistent with the statutory language which requires that the veteran “as a result of service-connected disability, is in need of regular aid and attendance for the residuals of [TBI].” While the statutory language could be read to allow entitlement to section 1114(t) compensation to those veterans with any service-connected disability that also suffer from TBI residuals, VA believes that the phrase “as a result of” indicates Congress intended that the need for a higher level of aid and attendance for TBI residuals to be due to a service-connected disability. Further, the legislative history is clear that Congress intended section 1114(t) compensation to be provided to those veterans suffering from service-connected residuals of TBI.
Lastly, VA proposes to amend 38 CFR 3.552(b)(2). Section 3.552 regulates adjustments of allowance for aid and attendance. Specifically, paragraph (b)(2) states that “[w]hen a veteran is hospitalized at the expense of the United States Government, the additional aid and attendance allowance authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1114(r)(1) or (2) will be discontinued . . .”. To ensure consistency in its regulations, and to implement the conforming amendment of the Act, VA is amending that paragraph to include 38 U.S.C. 1114(t). This amendment is supported by the
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). This proposed rule would directly affect only individuals and would not directly affect small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
This proposed rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title for the program affected by this document is 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on December 13, 2016, for publication.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 3 as set forth below:
38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted.
(j)
(1) A veteran described in this paragraph (j) shall be entitled to the amount equal to the compensation authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1114(o) or the maximum rate authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1114(p) and, in addition to such compensation, a monthly allowance equal to the rate described in 38 U.S.C. 1114(r)(2) during periods he or she is not hospitalized at United States Government expense. (
(2) An allowance authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1114(t) shall be paid in lieu of any allowance authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1114(r)(1).
The addition and revision reads as follows:
(b)(1) * * *
(2) A veteran is entitled to the higher level aid and attendance allowance authorized by § 3.350(j) in lieu of the regular aid and attendance allowance when all of the following conditions are met:
(i) As a result of service-connected residuals of traumatic brain injury, the veteran meets the requirements for entitlement to the regular aid and attendance allowance in paragraph (a) of this section.
(ii) As a result of service-connected residuals of traumatic brain injury, the veteran needs a “higher level of care” (as defined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section) than is required to establish entitlement to the regular aid and attendance allowance, and in the absence of the provision of such higher level of care the veteran would require hospitalization, nursing home care, or other residential institutional care.
* * *
The revision read as follows:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine that the Mariposa County, California Moderate Nonattainment Area (NAA) has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or “standards”). This proposed determination is based on complete, quality-assured and certified data for 2013-2015. Preliminary data for 2016 are consistent with continued attainment of the standards in the Mariposa County NAA. If the determination is finalized as proposed, any unfulfilled obligations to submit revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP) related to attainment of the 2008 ozone standards for the Mariposa County NAA will be suspended for as long as the area continues to meet those standards.
Any comments must arrive by January 20, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0669 at
Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3848,
Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. In the Rules and Regulations section of this
Legal Services Corporation.
Proposed rule; Extension of comment period.
The Legal Services Corporation (“LSC”) issued a proposed rule in the
Comments must be submitted by January 26, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007, (202) 295-1563 (phone), (202) 337-6519 (fax),
LSC is extending the public comment period stated in the
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by January 20, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by January 20, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Virginia Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Roanoke, VA. 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 at 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on the following dates:
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meetings will be held at the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests (NF) Supervisor's Office, Conference Room, 5162 Valleypointe Parkway, Roanoke, Virginia.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Rebecca Robbins, RAC Coordinator by phone at (540) 265-5173 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 meetings is to prioritize and recommend projects for Title II funds. 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 April 3, 2017 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 Rebecca Robbins, RAC Coordinator, George Washington and Jefferson NF Supervisor's Office, 5162 Valleypointe Parkway, Roanoke, Virginia 24019; or by email to
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA), Department of Commerce.
Extension of Deadline for Nominations of Members to the Commerce Data Advisory Council (CDAC).
The Secretary of Commerce is requesting nomination of individuals to the Commerce Data Advisory Council. The Secretary will consider nominations received in response to this notice, as well as from other sources. The
The Economics and Statistics Administration must receive nominations of members by midnight January 6, 2017.
Please submit nominations to the email account
Burton Reist, Director of External Affairs, Economics and Statistics Administration, Department of Commerce, at (202) 482-3331 or email
The Department of Commerce (Department) collects, compiles, analyzes, and disseminates a treasure trove of data, including data on the Nation's economy, population, and environment. This data is fundamental to the Department's mission and is used for the protection of life and property, for scientific purposes, and to enhance economic growth. However, the Department's capacity to disseminate the increasing amount of data held and to disseminate it in formats most useful to its customers is significantly constrained.
In order to realize the potential value of the data the Department collects, stores, and disseminates, the Department must minimize barriers to accessing and using the data. Consistent with privacy and security considerations, the Department is firmly committed to unleashing its untapped data resources in ways that best support downstream information access, processing, analysis, and dissemination.
The Commerce Data Advisory Council (CDAC) provides advice and recommendations, to include process and infrastructure improvements, to the Secretary on ways to make Commerce data easier to find, access, use, combine and disseminate. The aim of this advice shall be to maximize the value of Commerce data to all users including governments, businesses, communities, academia, and individuals.
The Secretary will draw CDAC membership from the data industry academia, non-profits and state and local governments with a focus on recognized expertise in collection, compilation, analysis, and dissemination. As privacy concerns span the entire data lifecycle, expertise in privacy protection also will be represented on the Council. The Secretary will select members that represent the entire spectrum of Commerce data including demographic, economic, scientific, environmental, patent, and geospatial data. The Secretary will select members from the information technology, business, non-profit, and academic communities, and state and local governments. Collectively, their knowledge will include all types of data Commerce distributes and the full lifecycle of data collection, compilation, analysis, and dissemination.
The Council shall advise the Secretary on ways to make Commerce data easier to find, access, use, combine, and disseminate. Such advice may include recommended process and infrastructure improvements. The aim of this advice shall be to maximize the value of Commerce data to governments, businesses, communities, and individuals.
In carrying out its duties, the Council may consider the following:
The Council meets up to four times a year, budget permitting. Special meetings may be called when appropriate.
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees, is the governing instrument for the CDAC.
1. The Council shall consist of up to 20 members.
2. The Secretary shall select and appoint members and members shall serve at the pleasure of the Secretary.
3. Members shall represent a cross-section of business, academic, non-profit, and non-governmental organizations.
4. The Secretary will choose members of the Council who ensure objectivity and balance, a diversity of perspectives, and guard against potential for conflicts of interest.
5. Members shall be prominent experts in their fields, recognized for their professional and other relevant achievements and their objectivity.
6. In order to ensure the continuity of the Commerce Data Advisory Council, the Council shall be appointed so that each year the terms expire of approximately one-third of the members of the Council.
7. Council members serve for terms of two years and may be reappointed to any number of additional terms. Initial appointments may be for 12-, 18- and 24-month increments to provide staggered terms.
8. Nominees must be able to actively participate in the tasks of the Council, including, but not limited to regular meeting attendance, Council meeting discussant responsibilities, and review of materials, as well as participation in conference calls, webinars, working groups, and special Council activities.
9. Should a council member be unable to complete a two-year term and when vacancies occur, the Secretary will select replacements who can best either replicate the expertise of the departing member or provide the CDAC with a new, identified needed area of expertise. An individual chosen to fill a vacancy shall be appointed for the remainder of the term of the member replaced or for a two-year term as deemed. A vacancy shall not affect the exercise of any power of the remaining members to execute the duties of the Council.
10. No employee of the federal government can serve as a member of the Census Scientific Advisory Committee.
All members of the Commerce Data Advisory Council shall adhere to the conflict of interest rules applicable to Special Government Employees as such employees are defined in 18 U.S.C. 202(a). These rules include relevant provisions in 18 U.S.C. related to criminal activity, Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635), and Executive Order 12674 (as modified by Executive Order 12731).
1. Membership is under voluntary circumstances and therefore members do not receive compensation for service on the Commerce Data Advisory Council.
2. Members shall receive per diem and travel expenses as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5703, as amended, for persons employed intermittently in the Government service.
The Secretary will consider nominations of all qualified individuals to ensure that the CDAC includes the areas of subject matter expertise noted above (see ”Background and Membership”). Individuals may nominate themselves or other individuals, and professional associations and organizations may nominate one or more qualified persons for membership on the CDAC. Nominations shall state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Council. A nomination package should include the following information for each nominee:
1. A letter of nomination stating the name, affiliation, and contact information for the nominee, the basis for the nomination (
2. A biographical sketch of the nominee and a copy of his/her resume or curriculum vitae; and
3. The name, return address, email address, and daytime telephone number at which the nominator can be contacted.
The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks diverse Committee membership. The Department has special interest in assuring that women, minority groups, and the physically disabled are adequately represented on advisory committees; and therefore, extends particular encouragement to nominations for appropriately qualified female, minority, or disabled candidates. The Department of Commerce also encourages geographic diversity in the composition of the Council. All nomination information should be provided in a single, complete package and received by the stated deadline, January 6, 2017. Interested applicants should send their nomination package to the email or postal address provided above.
Potential candidates will be asked to provide detailed information concerning financial interests, consultancies, research grants, and/or contracts that might be affected by recommendations of the Council to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflicts of interest. Finally, nominees will be required to certify that they are not subject to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (22 U.S.C. 611) or the Lobbying Disclosure Act (2 U.S.C. 1601
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Effective December 21, 2016.
As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain large diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line and pressure pipe (large diameter pipe) from Japan and certain small diameter carbon and
Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0410.
On September 1, 2016, the Department published the notice of initiation of the third sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on large diameter pipe from Japan and small diameter pipe from Japan and Romania, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
On October 3, 2016, the Department received a complete substantive response from the petitioners for each of the reviews within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no substantive responses from any respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted expedited sunset reviews of these antidumping duty orders.
The products covered by this order are large diameter seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes. The seamless pipes subject to this order are currently classifiable under the subheadings 7304.10.10.30, 7304.10.10.45, 7304.10.10.60, 7304.10.50.50, 7304.19.10.30, 7304.19.10.45, 7304.19.10.60, 7304.19.50.50, 7304.31.60.10, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.04, 7304.39.00.06, 7304.39.00.08, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.51.50.15, 7304.51.50.45, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.20.30, 7304.59.20.55, 7304.59.20.60, 7304.59.20.70, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, and 7304.59.80.70 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written product description remains dispositive.
The products covered by these orders include small diameter seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes and redraw hollows. The seamless pipes subject to these orders are currently classifiable under the subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.19.10.20, 7304.19.50.20, 7304.31.30.00, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 7304.59.80.25 of the HTSUS. The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written product description remains dispositive.
All issues raised in these reviews, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the orders were revoked, are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the order on large diameter pipe from Japan and the orders on small diameter pipe from Japan and Romania would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping up to the following weighted-average margin percentages:
This notice also 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 the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service, International Trade Administration, Commerce.
Notice of proposed fee revisions and request for comment.
The U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service (US&FCS) within the International Trade Administration (ITA) is seeking comment on its proposal to adjust user fees in light of an independent cost study which concluded that the US&FCS is not fully covering its costs for providing services under the current fee structure, as provided in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25. ITA provides a wide range of export and investment promotion information and services to U.S. individuals and entities. The services considered here are a subset of ITA activities that involve relatively more intensive time engagements with particular client firms; ITA will continue to provide information and services that are less intensive and/or benefit the general public without charge. As part of this proposal, US&FCS also proposes to revise the standards related to company size for determining the fees to be charged.
We will consider all comments that we receive by January 16, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery to Docket No. ITA-2016-0012, International Trade Administration, U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service, Office of Strategic Planning & Resource Management, 1400 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm. C125, Washington, DC 20235.
Ms. Aditi Palli, International Trade Administration, U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service, Office of Strategic Planning, 1400 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm. 21022, Washington, DC 20230, Phone: (202) 482-2025.
The statutory mission of US&FCS is to “place primary emphasis on the promotion of exports of goods and services from the United States, particularly by small businesses and medium-sized businesses, and on the protection of United States business interests abroad . . . through activities that include assisting United States exporters.” 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4721(b). The statute further defines the term “United States exporter” at 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4721(j) as a U.S. citizen, U.S. corporation, or foreign corporation that is more than 95% U.S.-owned, that “exports or seeks to export, goods or services produced in the United States.” In addition, US&FCS leads the federal government's investment promotion efforts “to attract and retain investment in the American economy” as provided in Executive Order 13577—SelectUSA Initiative (June 15, 2011). In carrying out these efforts, US&FCS may collect user fees from U.S. economic development organizations that seek to promote their locality to foreign investors.
OMB Circular A-25 requires the recovery of an appropriate share of the full cost through user fees for goods and services provided to recipients of benefits beyond those accruing to the general public. Specifically, section 6 of Circular A-25 states that “when a service (or privilege) provides special benefits to an identifiable recipient beyond those that accrue to the general public, a charge will be imposed (to recover the full cost to the Federal Government for providing the special benefit, or the market price).” A “user fee” is the amount paid by a recipient of a special benefit beyond those benefits accruing to the general public. A “special benefit” may accrue and a user fee be imposed when a government service: (a) Enables the beneficiary to obtain more immediate or substantial gains or values than those that accrue to the general public; (b) is performed at the request or for the convenience of the recipient, and is beyond the services regularly received by members of the same industry or group or by the general public; or (c) provides business stability or contributes to public confidence in the business activity of the beneficiary.
The direct or indirect cost of a service provided by the Federal Government includes, but is not limited to, the following:
• Direct and indirect personnel costs, including salaries and fringe benefits such as medical insurance and retirement. Retirement costs should include all (funded or unfunded) accrued costs not covered by employee contributions as specified in Circular A-11.
• Physical overhead, consulting, or other indirect costs including material and supply costs, utilities, insurance travel, and rents or imputed rents on land, buildings, and equipment.
• The management and supervisory costs.
• The costs of enforcement, collection, research, establishment of standards, and regulation, including any environmental impact statements.
To comply with the Small Business Act, US&FCS, in consultation with the Small Business Administration (SBA), proposes the following standards related to company size:
•
•
•
The US&FCS is committed to ensuring small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can access the services that US&FCS provides. The US&FCS has historically offered a discount to SMEs, as well as to U.S. economic development organizations and non-profit educational institutions. US&FCS proposes to continue discounted fees for these target populations. Rather than applying a
The US&FCS offers export and investment promotion services to U.S. businesses that consist of Standardized Fee Services and Customized Fee Services. For each of these services, the US&FCS collects fees according to the User Fee Schedule that is made available on its Web site and agency publications. The “Standardized Fee Services” listed in the User Fee Schedule are services that are performed in the same general manner by all US&FCS field units. Other “Customized Services,” not shown in the chart below, entail substantive variation of the scope of work with fees based on the level of effort required and direct costs incurred. Under this notice, US&FCS proposes to turn more Customized Fee Services into Standardized Fee Services to improve the consistency and clarity of fees to be charged.
The US&FCS proposes to modify the user fees for both Standardized Fee Services and Customized Fee Services. The proposed new User Fee Schedule provided below lists each standardized fee service and the estimated number of hours for completion of service delivery. To determine the large company fee for any service, a flat hourly rate of $46 for locally employed staff, $150 for commercial officers and $80 for U.S.-based staff is multiplied by the estimated workload hours for each employee type. To determine the fees for a small business and medium-sized business, price sensitivity survey results were analyzed to determine the discount to be applied. Direct costs, such as transportation or an interpreter, will be discussed with the client and assessed in addition to the user fee. For Customized Fee Services, the estimated workload hours will vary, but the user fee will be calculated based on the weighted average hourly rate of $90 per hour for large companies, $70 per hour for medium-sized enterprises, and $30 per hour for small businesses. The services included in this proposal are described below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
The US&FCS currently offers various discounts to SMEs, economic development organizations and non-profit educational institutions. US&FCS proposes to discount services for all small businesses, economic development organization and non-profit educational institutions by an average of ~70 percent and for all medium-sized enterprises by an average of ~30 percent. Under this notice, US&FCS also proposes to eliminate the current SME incentive program, which currently offers an additional discount for first-time users of US&FCS services.
Full cost rates and SME discount rates are provided on the next page so that the public can comment upon the implications of
•
•
•
•
•
• Webinars will be archived and made available to the general public, so the requirement to cover US&FCS's costs does not apply; however, a minimal fee is proposed to help ensure the suitability of participants and cover the cost of any special benefit that may derive from attending in real-time, such as question and answer opportunities. Uniform pricing is proposed as the enforcement of pricing by size standards of each registrant would create an administrative burden. Some webinars will be provided at no charge when the purpose is primarily to promote US&FCS or other United States Government events, activities, etc.
The cost of service methodology developed by US&FCS was designed to bring the organization closer to full cost recovery guidance set forth in OMB Circular A-25. To set user fees that are “self-sustaining,” the US&FCS had to determine the true cost of providing various export and investment promotion services.
Federal Accounting Standards permit US&FCS to use an activity-based costing model to determine the true cost of services listed in the proposed User Fee Schedule. The activities were defined in accordance with the US&FCS list of services offered by US&FCS, including both standard and customized services.
As part of the cost of service study, the US&FCS conducted a workload survey to obtain a more accurate estimate of the true cost for delivery of specific services. The workload survey was designed and distributed to all US&FCS international and domestic field units. The data submitted by various US&FCS field units was then aggregated to determine the global average of workload for each standard or customized service. Using FY2015 US&FCS budget data, fringe benefits and non-labor related costs (
Based on the information provided above, the US&FCS believes its proposed fees are consistent with both the mission of US&FCS to promote “exports of goods and services from the United States, particularly by small businesses and medium-sized businesses,” and the objective of OMB Circular A-25 to “promote efficient allocation of the nation's resources by establishing charges for special benefits provided to the recipient that are at least as great as the cost to the U.S. Government of providing the special benefits.”
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) and the International Trade Commission (the “ITC”) that revocation of the antidumping duty (“AD”) orders on seamless refined copper pipe and tube (“copper pipe and tube”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) and Mexico would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing this notice of continuation of the AD orders.
Effective December 21, 2016.
Robert Galantucci, 202-482-2923, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On November 22, 2010, the Department published the AD orders on copper pipe and tube from the PRC and Mexico.
For the purpose of the
The scope of the
“Refined copper” is defined as: (1) Metal containing at least 99.85 percent by weight of copper; or (2) metal containing at least 97.5 percent by weight of copper, provided that the content by weight of any other element does not exceed the following limits:
Excluded from the scope of the
As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the
The effective date of the continuation of the
These five-year sunset reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On November 23, 2016, the United States Court of International Trade (the Court) sustained the final second remand redetermination pertaining to the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period of review of June 1, 2010, through May 31, 2011.
Effective December 3, 2016.
Emily Halle, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0176.
On January 22, 2013, the Department published the
Upon consideration of the First Remand Results,
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending the
In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the revised rate the Department determined and listed above.
Because there have been subsequent administrative reviews for Jiheng and Kangtai, the case deposit rates will remain the rates established in the
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(l), 75l(a)(l), and 777(i)(l) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce 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 January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, based on the timely withdrawal of the request for review.
Effective December 21, 2016.
Rebecca M. Janz, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2972.
On July 5, 2016, the Department published in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. The petitioner withdrew its request for review by the 90-day deadline. No other parties requested an administrative review of the order. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on CWP from the PRC covering the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries. 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 in the
This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to
Written comments must be submitted on or before February 21, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Shannon Sprague, NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 207, Annapolis, MD 21403, 410-267-5664 or
This request is for a new information collection.
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement of 2014 requires monitoring of progress towards the environmental literacy goal: “Enable students in the region to graduate with the knowledge and skills needed to act responsibly to protect and restore their local watersheds.” NOAA, on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Program, will ask the state education agencies for Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia to survey their local education agencies (LEAs) to determine: (1) LEA capacity to implement a comprehensive and systemic approach to environmental literacy education, (2) student participation in Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences during the school year, (3) sustainability practices at schools, and (4) LEA needs for improving environmental literacy education programming. LEAs (generally school districts, in some cases charter school administration) are asked to complete the survey on the status of their LEA on a set of key indicators for the four areas listed above. One individual from each LEA is asked to complete this survey once every two years.
Respondents will submit their information electronically on web-based survey forms.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before February 21, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Michael Liddel (301) 427-8139 or
This request is for extension of a currently approved collection.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued government-wide guidance to enhance the practice of peer review of government science documents. OMB's Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (“Peer Review Bulletin” or PRB) (available at
The Peer Review Bulletin also directs Federal agencies to adopt or adapt the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) policy for evaluating conflicts of interest when selecting peer reviewers who are not Federal government employees (federal employees are subject to Federal ethics requirements). For peer review purposes, the term “conflicts of interest” means any financial or other interest which conflicts with the service of the individual because it could: (1) Significantly impair the individual's objectivity; or (2) create an unfair competitive advantage for any person or organization. NOAA has adapted the NAS policy and developed two confidential conflict disclosure forms which the agency will use to examine prospective reviewers' potential financial conflicts and other interests that could impair objectivity or create an unfair advantage. One form is for peer reviewers of studies related to government regulation and the other form is for all other influential scientific information subject to the Peer Review Bulletin. In addition, the latter form has been adapted by NOAA's Office of
The forms include questions about employment as well as investment and property interests and research funding. Both forms also require the submission of curriculum vitae. NOAA is seeking to collect this information from potential peer reviewers who are not government employees when conducting a peer review pursuant to the PRB. The information collected in the conflict of interest disclosure is essential to NOAA's compliance with the OMB PRB, and helps to ensure that government studies are reviewed by independent, impartial peer reviewers.
Forms may be downloaded from the Internet and are fillable and signable electronically or manually. They may be submitted, along with the Curriculum Vitae, via email or regular mail.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a public meeting of the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee provides advice to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on spectrum management policy matters.
The meeting will be held on January 25, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST).
The meeting will be held at the Verizon Technology and Policy Center, 1300 I St NW., Suite 500 East, Washington, DC 20005. Public comments may be mailed to the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4600, Washington, DC 20230, or emailed to
David J. Reed, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 482-5955 or
This Committee is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and is consistent with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Act, 47 U.S.C. 904(b). The Committee functions solely as an advisory body in compliance with the FACA. For more information about the Committee visit:
The meeting will be open to the public and members of the press on a first-come, first-served basis, as space is limited. The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) implemented a pilot program (Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program) in which an applicant, under certain conditions, can request a 12-month time period to pay the search fee, the examination fee, any excess claim fees, and the surcharge (for the late submission of the search fee and the examination fee) in a nonprovisional application. The Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program benefits applicants by permitting additional time to determine if patent protection should be sought—at a relatively low cost—and by permitting applicants to focus efforts on commercialization during this period. The Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program benefits the USPTO and the public by adding publications to the body of prior art, and by removing from the USPTO's workload those nonprovisional applications for which applicants later decide not to pursue examination. While the USPTO has not yet completed its evaluation of the program, the number of participants in the program over the past several years indicates that there may be sufficient benefits to the patent community. Thus, the USPTO is extending the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program until January 2, 2018, to allow the USPTO to continue its evaluation of the pilot program. The requirements of the program have not changed.
Eugenia A. Jones, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone at (571) 272-7727, or Erin M. Harriman, Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone at (571) 272-7747.
Inquiries regarding this notice may be directed to the Office of Patent Legal Administration, by telephone at (571) 272-7701, or by electronic mail at
On December 8, 2010, after considering written comments from the public, the USPTO changed the missing parts examination procedures in certain nonprovisional applications by implementing a pilot program (
On September 6, 2016, the USPTO sought public comment on whether the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program offers sufficient benefits to the patent community for it to be made permanent or whether the USPTO should permit the pilot program to expire.
The requirements of the program, which have not been modified, are reiterated below. Applicants are strongly advised to review the pilot program requirements before making a request to participate in the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program.
The USPTO cautions all applicants that, in order to claim the benefit of a prior provisional application, the statute
I.
As required for all nonprovisional applications, the applicant will need to satisfy filing date requirements and publication requirements. In the rulemaking to implement the PLT and title II of the PLTIA, the USPTO provided that an application (other than an application for a design patent) filed on or after December 18, 2013, is not required to include a claim to be entitled to a filing date.
As noted above, applicants should request participation in the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program by using Form PTO/AIA/421. For utility patent applications, the applicant may file the application and the certification and request electronically using the USPTO electronic filing system, EFS-Web, and selecting the document description of “Certification and Request for Missing Parts Pilot” for the certification and request on the EFS-Web screen. Form PTO/AIA/421 is available on the USPTO Web site at
The utility application including the certification and request to participate in the pilot program may also be hand-carried to the USPTO or filed by mail, for example, by Priority Mail Express® in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10. However, applicants are advised that, effective November 15, 2011, as provided in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, a new additional fee of $400.00 for a non-small entity ($200.00 for a small entity) is due for any nonprovisional utility patent application that is not filed by EFS-Web.
For plant patent applications, the applicant must file the application including the certification and request to participate in the pilot program by mail or hand-carried to the USPTO since plant patent applications cannot be filed electronically using EFS-Web.
II.
For a detailed discussion regarding treatment of applications that are not in condition for publication, processing of improper requests to participate in the program, and treatment of authorizations to charge fees,
III.
Furthermore, the nonprovisional application as originally filed must have a complete disclosure that complies with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and is sufficient to support the claims submitted on filing and any claims submitted later during prosecution. New matter cannot be added to an application after the filing date of the application.
Applicants are also advised that the extended missing parts period does not affect the 12-month priority period provided by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention). Accordingly, any foreign filings must, in most cases, still be made within 12 months of the filing date of the provisional application if the applicant wishes to rely on the provisional application in the foreign-filed application or if protection is desired in a country requiring filing within 12 months of the earliest application for which rights are left outstanding in order to be entitled to priority.
For additional reminders,
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Notice.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2016.
Please note that on December 10, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). ESSA provided specific statutory authority for the SEED program, under section 2242, for grant competitions beginning with funds appropriated for FY 2017. Accordingly,
These priorities are:
Projects that are supported by Moderate Evidence of Effectiveness.
This priority funds projects that will create or expand practices and strategies that increase the number of Highly Effective Teachers or Highly Effective Principals by recruiting, selecting, and preparing talented individuals to work in schools with high concentrations of High-Need Students. Projects must include activities that focus on creating or expanding high-performing teacher preparation programs, principal preparation programs, or both. Activities may include but are not limited to expanding clinical experiences, redesigning and implementing program coursework to align with State standards and district requirements for P-12 teachers, providing induction and other support for program participants in their classrooms and schools, and developing strategies for tracking the effect program graduates have on the achievement of their students or the performance of their schools.
In addition, an applicant must propose a plan demonstrating a rigorous, competitive selection process to determine which aspiring teachers or principals participate in the applicant's proposed activities.
This priority funds projects that will create or expand practices and strategies that increase the number of Highly Effective Teachers by providing professional development opportunities to teachers, including special education teachers, in schools with high concentrations of High-Need Students. Projects must focus on increasing Student Achievement in academic subjects by providing high-quality professional development to teachers. The academic subjects that may be addressed through professional development under this priority include foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, physical education, geography, environmental education, and financial literacy.
Applicants are required to describe the need of the proposed districts to be served for teacher professional development in the selected high-need academic subjects and to demonstrate alignment of the proposed projects with State standards.
In addition, applicants must describe how they plan to measure the impact the professional development has on teacher effectiveness. Applicants must determine teacher effectiveness through a rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation in which performance is differentiated using multiple measures of effectiveness and based in significant part on Student Growth.
The list of subjects provided in this priority is illustrative. Applicants may propose to address other academic subjects or areas, such as writing, reading, or mathematics, which partner schools and districts have demonstrated to be high-need.
This priority funds projects that will create or expand practices and strategies based on advanced certification or advanced credentialing that increase the number of Highly Effective Teachers, Highly Effective Principals, or both, who work in schools with high concentrations of High-Need Students.
Applicants are required to focus their proposed projects on encouraging and supporting teachers, principals, or both, who seek a nationally recognized, standards-based advanced certificate or advanced credential through high-quality professional enhancement projects designed to improve teaching and learning for teachers who may take on Career Ladder Positions, principals, or both who would serve as models, mentors, and coaches for other teachers, principals, or both working in schools with high concentrations of High-Need Students.
In addition, the effectiveness of teachers or principals who receive advanced certification or credentialing must be determined through a rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation in which performance is differentiated using multiple measures of effectiveness and based in significant part on Student Growth.
Finally, an applicant must propose a plan demonstrating a rigorous, competitive selection process to determine which teachers or principals participate in the applicant's proposed activities.
These priorities are:
Projects that are supported by Strong Evidence of Effectiveness.
Projects that will identify strategies for providing cost-effective, high-quality services at the State, regional, or local level by making better use of available resources. Such projects may include innovative and sustainable uses of technology, modification of school schedules and teacher compensation systems, use of Open Educational Resources, or other strategies.
This priority funds projects that address one or both of the following priority areas:
(a) Increasing the opportunities for high-quality preparation of, or professional development for, teachers of STEM subjects.
(b) Increasing the number of individuals from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM, including minorities, individuals with disabilities, and women, who are teachers of STEM subjects and have increased opportunities for high-quality preparation or professional development.
In addition, applicants must describe how they plan to measure the impact the proposed project activities have on teacher effectiveness. Applicants must determine teacher effectiveness through a rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation in which performance is differentiated using multiple measures of effectiveness and based in significant part on Student Growth.
Applicants may choose to respond to one or both of the priority areas and are not required to respond to each priority area in order to receive the maximum available points under this competitive preference priority.
This priority funds projects that are designed to improve academic outcomes for one or more of the following groups of students:
(i) Students served by Rural Local Educational Agencies.
(ii) Students with disabilities.
(iii) English learners.
(iv) Students who are members of federally recognized Indian tribes.
Applicants may choose to respond to one or more of the priority areas and are not required to respond to each priority area in order to receive the maximum available points under this competitive preference priority.
The following definitions are from the SEED NFP, the Supplemental Priorities, and 34 CFR 77.1. The source of each definition is noted in parentheses following the text of the definition.
The requirement concerning State Teacher Equity Plans is set out in section 1111(g)(1)(B) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Applicants that did not establish Teacher Equity Plans after ESSA took effect can rely on their prior Teacher Equity Plan.
For a State with an approved request for flexibility under the ESEA, Priority Schools or Tier I and Tier II Schools identified under the School Improvement Grants program.
For any other State, Tier I and Tier II Schools identified under the School Improvement Grants program. (Supplemental Priorities)
ESEA flexibility ended on August 1, 2016. Consequently, the approved requests for flexibility referenced in the definition of “Lowest-Performing Schools” would have been granted prior to that date.
(a) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a Relevant Outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse), and includes a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice.
(b) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a Relevant Outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in
(a)(1) Any Title I school that has been identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under section 1116 of the ESEA, and that—
(i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or
(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate, as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b), that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; and
(2) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that—
(i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of schools is greater; or
(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate, as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b), that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.
(b) To identify the lowest-achieving schools, a State must take into account both—
(i) The academic achievement of the “all students” group in a school in terms of proficiency on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act, in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and
(ii) The school's lack of progress on those assessments over a number of years in the “all students” group. (Supplemental Priorities)
The Department will also consider any school a persistently lowest-achieving school that, at the time of submission of application under this competition, meets the definition of “Lowest-Performing Schools” set out in this Notice.
We are providing this flexibility because a State that received ESEA flexibility was not required to identify schools in corrective action or restructuring under the ESEA; but rather, the State identified priority and focus schools. Moreover, consistent with final regulations issued under the School Improvement Grants program (80 FR 7223), the definition of Tier I and Tier II Schools includes persistently lowest-achieving schools.
(a) A school among the lowest five percent of Title I schools in the State based on the achievement of the “all students” group in terms of proficiency on the statewide assessments that are part of the SEA's differentiated recognition, accountability, and support system, combined, and has demonstrated a lack of progress on those assessments over a number of years in the “all students” group;
(b) A Title I-participating or Title I-eligible high school with a graduation rate that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; or
(c) A Tier I or Tier II school under the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program that is using SIG funds to implement a school intervention model. (Supplemental Priorities)
(a) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a Relevant Outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse), includes a sample that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice, and includes a Large Sample and a Multi-site Sample. (
(b) There are at least two studies of the effectiveness of the process, product,
(a) For tested grades and subjects: (1) A student's score on the State's assessments under the ESEA; and, as appropriate, (2) other measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b) of this definition, provided they are rigorous and comparable across schools.
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: alternative measures of student learning and performance, such as student scores on pre-tests and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language proficiency assessments; and other measures of Student Achievement that are rigorous and comparable across schools. (SEED NFP)
(a) A Title I school that has been identified as in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under section 1116 of the ESEA and that is identified by the SEA under paragraph (a)(1) of the definition of “Persistently Lowest Achieving School.”
(b) An elementary school that is eligible for Title I, Part A funds that—
(1)(i) Has not made adequate yearly progress for at least two consecutive years; or
(ii) Is in the State's lowest quintile of performance based on proficiency rates on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and (2) Is no higher achieving than the highest-achieving school identified by the SEA under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of the definition of “Persistently Lowest Achieving School.” (Supplemental Priorities)
(a) A secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I, Part A funds and is identified by the State educational agency (SEA) under paragraph (a)(2) of the definition of “Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools.”
(b) A secondary school that is eligible for Title I, Part A funds that—
(1)(i) Has not made adequate yearly progress for at least two consecutive years; or
(ii) Is in the State's lowest quintile of performance based on proficiency rates on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and
(2)(i) Is no higher achieving than the highest-achieving school identified by the SEA under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the definition of “Persistently Lowest Achieving school;” or
(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate, as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b), that is less than 60 percent over a number of years. (Supplemental Priorities)
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
The Department will provide each selected project with a single award for a multi-year grant period. The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Project Period: Up to 36 months.
In subsequent fiscal years, under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Department may offer SEED grantees the option of extending their SEED-related data collection and evaluation activities beyond the 36-month project period, and could choose to provide additional funding, for the purposes of data collection, analysis, and reporting, pending Congressional appropriations. This flexibility is not guaranteed and is contingent on available funding in subsequent fiscal years. The Department has discretion in deciding which, if any, SEED projects will receive additional time and funding for the purposes of data collection, analysis, and reporting.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.a.
Eligible entities that fail to provide this email notification may still apply for funding.
• A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, except for titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, captions, charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
•
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, or letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section [Part III].
b.
Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you feel is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through,
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the SEED program, CFDA number 84.367D, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the SEED program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the
• Applications received by
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
•
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only PDF (
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from
Once your application is successfully validated by
These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Margarita Meléndez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W115, Washington, DC 20202-5960. FAX: (202) 401-4123.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand-delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.367D), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.367D), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application
1.
The maximum score for all the selection criteria is 100 points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses. Each criterion also includes the factors that reviewers will consider in determining the extent to which an applicant meets the criterion.
In addressing each criterion, applicants are encouraged to make explicit connections to relevant aspects of responses to other selection criteria.
A.
(1) The significance of the proposed project on a National Level. (SEED NFP)
(2) The potential contribution of the proposed project to the development and advancement of teacher and school leadership theory, knowledge, and practices. (SEED NFP)
(3) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in teaching and Student Achievement. (SEED NFP)
B.
(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, aligned, and measurable. (SEED NFP)
(2) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support rigorous academic standards for students. (SEED NFP)
(3) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project will be of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services. (SEED NFP)
(4) The extent to which the proposed project will prepare personnel for fields in which shortages have been demonstrated. (34 CFR 75.210)
(5) The extent to which the proposed project will focus on serving or otherwise addressing the needs of disadvantaged individuals. (34 CFR 75.210)
C.
(1) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director, key project personnel, and project consultants or subcontractors. (SEED NFP)
(2) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. (SEED NFP)
(3) The extent to which the proposed management plan includes sufficient and reasonable resources to effectively carry out the proposed project, including the project evaluation. (SEED NFP)
D.
(1) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance. (SEED NFP)
(2) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to yield findings and products (such as information, materials, processes, or techniques) that may be used by other agencies and organizations. (SEED NFP)
(3) The extent to which the applicant will disseminate information about results and outcomes of the proposed project in ways that will enable others, including the public, to use the information or strategies. (SEED NFP)
E.
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project. (SEED NFP)
(2) The extent to which the evaluation includes the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data. (SEED NFP)
(3) The extent to which the evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes. (SEED NFP)
(4) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well-implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that would meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations. (34 CFR 75.210)
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
4.
Margarita Meléndez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W115, Washington, DC 20202-5960. Telephone: (202) 260-3548, or by email:
If you use a TDD or TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
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.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and United States Geological Survey (USGS).
Notice of availability.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Geological Survey are releasing a technical report:
This report provides States, Tribes and territories with scientific and technical information on the natural flow regime and potential effects of flow alteration on aquatic life, and a flexible, nonprescriptive framework that state water managers might consider if they are interested in developing narrative or numeric targets for flow regime components that are protective of aquatic life. The report also provides information about States and Tribes that have adopted narrative water quality standards to protect their waterbodies' flow regimes and on the potential impact of climate change on flow regimes.
Diana Eignor, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Office of Water (Mail Code 4304T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-1143; email address:
This document serves as a technical and informational resource for States, Tribes, territories, and other stakeholders that want to protect aquatic life from the adverse effects of flow alteration. To that end, this report provides technical information about the effect of altered flow regimes on aquatic life and a nonprescriptive framework that may be used to help quantify targets for flow regime components that are protective of aquatic life and their habitats. The report also provides examples of state and tribal water quality standards designed to protect such flow regimes and discusses the potential impact of climate change on flow regimes. This technical report is not a rule and it, therefore, does not impose any mandatory requirements. State and Tribal decision makers retain the discretion to adopt approaches or information presented in this report on a case-by-case basis that differ from the approaches described in this report.
EPA and USGS each conducted internal peer reviews of the report, and EPA managed a contractor-led independent external peer review of the Draft EPA-USGS Technical Report: Protecting Aquatic Life from Effects of Hydrologic Alteration. EPA will make the external peer review comments and Agency responses to these comments available in the docket at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability.
This notice announces the broadly applicable alternative test method approval decisions the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made under and in support of New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) between January 1, 2016, and December 12, 2016.
An electronic copy of each alternative test method approval document is available at
This notice will be of interest to entities regulated under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 60, 61, and 63, state, local, and tribal agencies, and the EPA Regional offices responsible for implementation and enforcement of regulations under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63.
You may access copies of the broadly applicable alternative test method approval documents at
Broadly applicable alternative test method approval decisions made by the EPA in 2016 under the NSPS, 40 CFR part 60 and the NESHAP, 40 CFR parts 61 and 63 are identified in this notice (see Table 1). Source owners and operators may voluntarily use these broadly applicable alternative test methods in lieu of otherwise specified reference test methods. Use of these broadly applicable alternative test methods does not change the applicable emission standards.
As explained in a previous
It is important to clarify that alternative methods are not mandatory but permissive. Sources are not required to employ such a method but may choose to do so in appropriate circumstances. Source owners or operators should review the specific broadly applicable alternative method approval decision at
The criteria for approval and procedures for submission and review of broadly applicable alternative test methods are outlined at 72 FR 4257 (January 30, 2007). We will continue to announce approvals for broadly applicable alternative test methods at
This notice comprises a summary of seven such approval documents posted to our Technology Transfer Network between January 1, 2016, and December 12, 2016. The alternative method decision letter/memo number, the reference method affected, sources allowed to use this alternative, and the modification or alternative method allowed are summarized in Table 1 of this notice. For more detailed information, please refer to the complete copies of these approval documents available at
If you are aware of reasons why a particular alternative test method approval that we issued should not be broadly applicable or that its use should in some way be limited, we request that you make us aware of the reasons in writing, and we will revisit the broad approval. Any objection to a broadly applicable alternative test method, as well as the resolution of that objection, will be announced at
The following Agenda items have been deleted from the list of items scheduled for consideration at the Thursday, December 15, 2016, Open Meeting and previously listed in the Commission's Notice of December 8, 2016. Items 3. 4, 5, 6, have been adopted by the Commission.
The following Consent Agenda item has been deleted from the list of items scheduled for consideration at the Thursday, December 15, 2016, Open Meeting and previously listed in the Commission's Notice of December 8, 2016.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The following applicants filed AM or FM proposals to change the community of License: CSSI Non-Profit Educational Broadcasting Corporation, Station KYQX, Facility ID 62040, BMPED-20161202ABT, From Weatherford, TX, To Mineral Wells, TX; Gois Broadcasting Boston, LLC, Station WLLH, Facility ID 24971, BP-20161110AAP, From Lowell, MA, To Lawrence, MA; Grace Baptist Church of Orangeburg, Station WWOS, Facility ID 38899, BP-20161020ABD, From St. George, SC, To Walterboro, SC; Great Northern Broadcasting System, Inc., Station WLDR-FM, Facility ID 24974, BPH-20161128AFR, From Traverse City, MI, To Beulah, MI; Northwest Georgia Broadcasting, Station WYXC, Facility ID 19541, BP-20161107ACA, From Cartersville, GA, To East Point, GA; Premiere Enterprises, LLC, Station WALI, Facility ID 25206, BPH-20161020ABE, From Walterboro, SC, To Burton, SC; Revival Christian Ministries, Inc., Station WSGG, Facility ID 92857, BPED-20161110ABC, From Norfolk, CT, To Canaan, CT; Roy E. Henderson, Station WOUF, Facility ID 14646, BPH-20161128AFT, From Beulah, MI, To Traverse City, MI.
The agency must receive comments on or before February 21, 2017.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Tung Bui, 202-418-2700.
The full text of these applications is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 or electronically via the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System,
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than January 9, 2017.
A.
1.
B.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461
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 application also will 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 HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). 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 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). 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 January 18, 2017.
1.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning rights in data and copyrights. A notice published in the
Submit comments on or before January 20, 2017.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Charles Gray, Procurement Analyst, at 703-795-6328 or email
Subpart 27.4, Rights in Data and Copyrights is a regulation which concerns the rights of the Government and contractors with whom the Government contracts, regarding the use, reproduction, and disclosure of information developed under such contracts. The delineation of such rights is necessary in order to protect the contractor's rights to not disclose proprietary data, and to insure that data developed with public funds is available to the public.
The information collection burdens and recordkeeping requirements included in this regulation fall into the following four categories:
(a) A provision which is to be included in solicitations where the offeror would identify any proprietary data it would use during contract performance, in order that the contracting officer might ascertain if such proprietary data should be delivered.
(b) Contract provisions which, in unusual circumstances, would be included in a contract and require a contractor to deliver proprietary data to the Government for use in evaluating work results, or is software to be used in a Government computer. These situations would arise only when the very nature of the contractor's work is comprised of limited rights data or restricted computer software and if the Government would need to see that data in order to determine the extent of the work.
(c) A technical data certification for major systems, which requires the contractor to certify that the data delivered under the contract is complete, accurate and compliant with the requirements of the contract. As this provision is for major systems only, and few civilian agencies have such major systems, only about 30 contracts should require this certification.
(d) The Additional Data Requirements clause, which is to be included in all contracts for experimental, developmental, research, or demonstration work (other than basic or applied research to be performed solely by a university or college where the contract amount will be $500,000 or less). The clause requires that the contractor keep all data first produced in the performance of the contract for a period of three years from the final acceptance of all items delivered under the contract. Much of this data will be in the form of deliverables provided to the Government under the contract (final report, drawings, specifications, etc.). Some data, however, will be in the form of computations, preliminary data, records of experiments, etc., and these will be the data that will be required to be kept over and above the deliverables. The purpose of such recordkeeping requirements is to insure that the Government can fully evaluate the research in order to ascertain future activities and to insure that the research was completed and fully reported, as well as to give the public an opportunity to assess the research results and secure any additional information. All data covered by this clause is unlimited rights data paid for by the Government.
Paragraph (d) of the Rights in Data—General clause (52.227.14) outlines a procedure whereby a contracting officer can challenge restrictive markings on data delivered. Under civilian agency contracts, limited rights data or restricted computer software is rarely, if ever, delivered to the Government. Therefore, there may rarely be any challenges. Thus, there is no burden on the public.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0090, Rights in Data and Copyrights, in all correspondence.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection concerning subcontractor requests for bonds.
Submit comments on or before February 21, 2017.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0135 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Cecelia Davis, Procurement Analyst, Acquisition Policy Division, at 202-219-0202 or email
Part 28 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) contains guidance related to insuring against damages under Federal contracts (
This information collection is mandated by Section 806 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Pub. L. 102-190), as amended by Section 2091 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-335). The clause at 52.228-12, Prospective Subcontractor Requests for Bonds, implements Section 806(a)(3) of Public Law 102-190, as amended, which states that, upon the request of a prospective subcontractor or supplier offering to furnish labor or material under a construction contract for which a payment bond has been furnished pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 31, the contractor shall promptly provide a copy of such payment bond to the requestor.
Given that payment bonds, in conjunction with performance bonds, are used to secure the contractor's obligations, thereby assuring that payments are made to subcontractors and vendors under the contract, the requester will use information on payment bonds to determine whether to engage in business with that prime contractor.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control Number 9000-0135, Prospective Subcontractor Requests for Bonds, in all correspondence.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA),
Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning the examination of records by comptroller general and contract audit. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before January 20, 2017.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, Contract Policy Branch, GSA, 202-208-4949 or email
The objective of this information collection, for the examination of records by Comptroller General and contract audit, is to require contractors to maintain certain records and to ensure the Comptroller General and/or agency have access to, and the right to, examine and audit records, which includes: Books, documents, accounting procedures and practices, and other data, regardless of type and regardless of whether such items are in written form, in the form of computer data, or in any other form, for a period of three years after final payment. This information is necessary for examination and audit of contract surveillance, verification of contract pricing, and to provide reimbursement of contractor costs, where applicable. The records retention period is required by the statutory authorities at 10 U.S.C. 2313, 41 U.S.C. 254, and 10 U.S.C. 2306, and are implemented through the following clauses: Audit and Records-Negotiation clause, 52.215-2; Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders-Commercial Items clause, 52.212-5; and Audit and Records-Sealed Bidding clause, 52.214-26. This information collection does not require contractors to create or maintain any records that the contractor does not normally maintain in its usual course of business.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology and ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by February 21, 2017.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
• F
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
The Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act of 2004 (MUMS Act) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) to authorize FDA to establish new regulatory procedures intended to make more medications legally available to veterinarians and animal owners for the treatment of minor animal species (species other than cattle, horses, swine, chickens, turkeys, dogs, and cats), as well as uncommon diseases in major animal species.
Section 572 of the MUMS Act provided for a public index listing of legally marketed unapproved new animal drugs for minor species. FDA regulations in part 516 (21 CFR part 516) specify, among other things, the criteria and procedures for requesting eligibility for indexing and for requesting addition to the index as well as the annual reporting requirements for index holders.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, 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
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the 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.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc., has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of March 15, 2016.
The accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as commercial
Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 109 Sutherland Dr., Chickasaw, AL 36611, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Intertek USA, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
Privacy Office, DHS.
Committee Management; Request for Applicants for Appointment to the DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee.
The Department of Homeland Security Privacy Office seeks applicants for appointment to the DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee.
Applications for membership must reach the Department of Homeland Security Privacy Office at the address below on or before January 20, 2017.
If you wish to apply for membership, please submit the documents described below to Sandra Taylor, Designated Federal Officer, DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, by
•
•
Sandra Taylor, Designated Federal Officer, DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, by telephone (202) 343-1717, by fax (202) 343-4010, or by email to
The DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee is an advisory committee established in accordance with the provisions of the
1. Individuals who are currently working in higher education, state or local government, or not-for-profit organizations;
2. Individuals currently working in for-profit organizations including at least one who shall be familiar with the data privacy-related issues addressed by small- to medium-sized enterprises; and
3. Other individuals, as determined appropriate by the Secretary.
Committee members serve as Special Government Employees (SGE) as defined in sect. 202(a) of title 18 U.S.C. As such, they are subject to Federal conflict of interest laws and government-wide standards of conduct regulations. Members must annually file Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports (OGE Form 450) for review and approval by Department ethics officials. DHS may not release these reports or the information in them to the public except under an order issued by a Federal court or as otherwise provided under the
1. A current resume; and
2. A letter that explains your qualifications for service on the Committee and describes in detail how your experience is relevant to the Committee's work.
Your resume and your letter will be weighed equally in the application review process. Please note that by Administration policy, individuals who are registered as Federal lobbyists are not eligible to serve on Federal advisory committees. If you are registered as a Federal lobbyist and you have actively lobbied at any time within the past two years, you are not eligible to apply for membership on the DHS Data Integrity and Privacy Advisory Committee. Applicants selected for membership will be required to certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, that they are not registered as Federal lobbyists. Please send your documents to Sandra Taylor, Designated Federal Officer, DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, by
•
•
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-day Notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on a new Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected
Send your comments by February 21, 2017.
Comments may be emailed to
Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-2062.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is authorized to protect property owned, occupied, or secured by the Federal Government.
TSA has established a visitor management/vetting process that meets DHS requirements. This process allows TSA to conduct business with visitors and guest workers, while managing risks posed by individuals entering the building who have not been subject to a full employee security background check. Once vetted, TSA's Visitor Management System (VMS) generates temporary paper badges with photographs that visitors must wear when entering TSA facilities in the National Capital Region (NCR)
Under TSA's current visitor management/vetting process, visitors seeking to enter the TSA facilities must request access in person or through a current TSA employee by completing TSA Form 2802, Security Appointment Center (SAC) Visitor Request Form. TSA Form 2802 requires that visitors provide their first and last name, date and time of visit, visitor type (DHS or other government visitor), and whether they are a foreign or national visitor. In order to complete the new vetting process, TSA must collect Personally Identifiable Information (PII). The information collection includes the information TSA previously collected, and date of birth and social security number. TSA will use this information to vet visitors via the NCIC Wants & Warrants/Criminal History Checks and maintain records of access to TSA facilities.
TSA estimates the average annual number of visitors for 2016 through 2018 to be 42,843, with an annual time burden to the public of 714 hours.
TSA will use the results to determine the suitability of visitors to the TSA NCR locations. The collection would support the information needs of TSA to comply with security procedures to ensure a safe and secure work environment for TSA facilities' employees, contractors, and visitors.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until February 21, 2017.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0025 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0015. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until January 20, 2017. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions,
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until February 21, 2017.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0106 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2009-0010. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, 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 202-402-5564 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.
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 the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, 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 202-402-5564 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
• Certified copies of any State, county, or municipal licenses that may be required of the business to engage in the type of business activity for which it was formed. Where applicable, the PHA must obtain a certified copy of its corporate charter or other organizational document that verifies that the business was properly formed in accordance with State law;
• Certification that shows the business is owned by residents, disclosure documents that indicate all owners of the business and each owner's percentage of the business along with sufficient evidence sufficient that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the PHA that the business has the ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of the proposed contract;
• Certification as to the number of contracts awarded, and the dollar amount of each contract award received, under the alternative procurement process; and
• Contract award documents, proof of bonding documents, independent cost estimates and comparable price analyses.
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 the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, 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
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.
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 the Secretary, HUD.
Notice.
On June 23, 2016, HUD published a
Nominations for Committee membership are due on or before: February 21, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit nominations for membership on the Tribal Intergovernmental Advisory Committee. There are two methods for submission of nominations as explained below. Additionally, all submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.
1.
2.
To receive consideration, nominations must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the notice. Facsimile (FAX) nominations are not acceptable.
Heidi J. Frechette, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4126, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone, 202-401-7914 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
Consistent with Executive Order 13175, HUD's Tribal Government-to-Government Consultation Policy recognizes the right of Indian tribes to self-governance, and supports tribal sovereignty and self-determination. The Consultation Policy provides that HUD will engage in regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian tribal officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal implications, and provides that HUD may establish a standing tribal advisory committee. Executive Orders 13175 and 13647 require Federal agencies to advance tribal self-governance and ensure that the rights of sovereign tribal governments are fully respected by conducting open and candid consultations. HUD establishes the TIAC to further enhance consultation and collaboration with tribal governments. Several Federal agencies have established similar tribal advisory committees, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of the Treasury. These advisory committees convene periodically during the year to exchange information with agency staff, to provide agencies with an opportunity to notify tribal leaders of activities or policies that could affect Indian tribes, and to provide guidance on consultation.
This notice announces the establishment of the Tribal Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (TIAC) for HUD as part of its commitment to strengthen the unique government-to-government relationship between Federally-recognized American Indian tribes and Federal agencies.
The purposes of the TIAC are:
(1) To further facilitate intergovernmental communication between HUD and tribal governments on all HUD programs;
(2) To make recommendations to HUD regarding current program regulations that may require revision, as well as suggest methods to develop such changes. The TIAC will not, however, negotiate any changes to regulations that are subject to negotiated rulemaking under Section 106 of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA); and
(3) To advise on the development of HUD's American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) housing priorities.
The role of the TIAC is to provide recommendations and input to HUD, and to provide a vehicle for regular, meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal governments. It will not replace other means of tribal consultations, but supplement them. HUD will maintain the responsibility to exercise program management, including the drafting of HUD notices and guidance.
For the purpose of the TIAC, the term “tribal government” means: Any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688; 43 U.S.C. 1601
The TIAC will develop its own ruling charter and protocols. HUD will provide staff for the TIAC to act as liaisons between TIAC and HUD officials, manage meeting logistics, and provide general support for TIAC activities.
The Committee will not convene before October 1, 2017. Subject to availability of federal funding, the TIAC will meet in-person at least once a year to discuss agency policies and activities with HUD, set shared priorities, and facilitate further consultation with tribal leaders. HUD may pay for these meetings, including the member's cost to travel to these meetings. The TIAC may meet on a more frequent basis by conference calls or other forms of communication. Additional in-person meetings may be scheduled at HUD's discretion.
Participation at TIAC meetings will be limited to TIAC members or their alternates. TIAC members must be elected or duly appointed officers of a tribal government, and alternates must be tribal employees with authority to act on behalf of the elected tribal government official. Alternates must be designated in writing by the member's tribal government or elected tribal government official. TIAC members may bring one technical advisor to the meeting at the tribe's expense.
Meeting minutes will be available on the HUD Web site.
The TIAC will be comprised of HUD representatives and tribal government officials from across the country. The TIAC will be composed of up to six HUD officials (including the Secretary or his or her designee, as well as the Assistant Secretaries for Public and Indian Housing, Policy Development and Research, and Community Planning and Development) and up to fifteen tribal representatives. Up to two tribal members will represent each of the six
The Secretary will appoint the members of the TIAC. TIAC tribal delegates will serve a term of 2 years. To ensure continuity between tribal terms, delegates will have a staggered term of appointment. In order to establish a staggered term of appointment, half of the tribal members appointed in the inaugural year of the TIAC will serve 2 years and the other half will serve 3 years. Delegates must designate their preference to serve 2 or 3 years; however, HUD will make the final determination on which members will serve for 3 years. Once these members complete these initial terms, all future committee members will serve two-year terms. Should a member's tenure as a tribal leader come to an end during their appointment to the TIAC, the member's tribe may nominate a replacement.
The establishment of the TIAC is intended to enhance government-to-government relationships, communications, and mutual cooperation between HUD and tribal governments and is not intended to, and will not, create any right to administrative or judicial review, or any other right or benefit or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other persons.
The Committee will be composed of up to six HUD officials and up to fifteen tribal representatives. Up to two tribal members will represent each of the six HUD ONAP regions. The three remaining tribal members will serve at-large. Only duly elected or appointed tribal leaders may serve as tribal members of the TIAC. Once appointed to the TIAC, tribal leaders may designate an alternate who is a tribal employee and has the authority to act on his or her behalf. One of the tribal members will be selected by the Committee to serve as the chairperson.
If you are interested in serving as a member of the Committee or in nominating another person to serve as a member of the Committee, you may submit a nomination to HUD in accordance with the
1. The name of your nominee, a description of the interests the nominee would represent, and a description of the nominee's experience and interest in American Indian and Alaska Native housing and community development matters;
2. Evidence that your nominee is a duly elected or appointed tribal leader and is authorized to represent a tribal government;
3. A written commitment from the nominee that she or he will actively participate in good faith in the Committee meetings; and
4. A written preference for serving either a two- or a three-year term on the TIAC.
HUD will appoint the members of the TIAC from the pool of nominees requested by this notice. HUD will announce its final selections for TIAC membership in a future
In addition to the criteria above, at-large members will be selected based on their ability to represent specific interests that might not be represented by the selected regional members.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior; National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice of availability.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (Services), announce the availability of the final revised Habitat Conservation Planning (HCP) Handbook, which describes requirements, procedures, and guidance for permit issuance and conservation plan development for incidental take permits under the Endangered Species Act. The purpose of the newly revised joint HCP Handbook is to instruct the Services on how to assist applicants to develop HCPs in an efficient and effective manner, while ensuring adequate conservation of listed species. Although the Handbook is designed for the Services, it also can be useful to other HCP practitioners, such as applicants, consultants, and partners.
Trish Adams, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (phone: 703-358-2120; email:
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (together, the Services), announce the availability of the final revised Habitat Conservation Planning (HCP) Handbook, a joint handbook that describes requirements, procedures, and guidance for permit issuance and conservation plan development for incidental take permits under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The original HCP Handbook was made available via a
The final joint HCP Handbook is available at:
The purpose of the ESA is to protect and recover threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems on which they depend. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits “take” of any fish or wildlife species listed as endangered. In addition, take of many species listed as threatened is prohibited by regulation. “Take” is defined in ESA section 3 as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Before 1982, the ESA had a mechanism for exempting Federal actions (section 7) from the prohibition on “take”; however, it did not have one for non-Federal activities, except for permits to authorize “take” from scientific research or certain other conservation actions. Thus, non-Federal parties engaging in activities that might result in “take” of listed species risked violating ESA section 9 take prohibitions. Congress recognized the need for a process to reduce conflicts between protection of listed species and economic development, so it amended the ESA in 1982 to add an exemption for “incidental take” of listed species that would result from non-Federal activities (section 10(a)(1)(B)). “Incidental take” is that which is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. To obtain a permit under ESA section 10(a)(1)(B), applicants must develop a conservation plan that meets specific requirements identified in ESA section 10 and its regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32; 50 CFR 222.25, 222.27, and 222.31). Among other requirements, the plan must specify (1) the impacts that are likely to result from “incidental take” and (2) the measures that the permit applicant will undertake to minimize and mitigate such impacts. Conservation plans under section 10(a)(1)(B) have come to be known as habitat conservation plans (HCPs). ESA section 10(a)(2)(B) provides statutory criteria that must be satisfied before the Services can issue an incidental take permit.
The purpose of the joint HCP Handbook is to instruct the Services on how to assist applicants to develop HCPs in an efficient and effective manner while ensuring adequate conservation of listed species. The HCP Handbook guides Services staff, phase by phase, through development, implementation, and environmental compliance, using streamlined approaches whenever possible. It draws on past experience to help staff understand regulations and policy and navigate the various processes for completing an HCP and issuing a permit. Although the joint HCP Handbook is designed specifically for Services staff, it also can be helpful to other HCP practitioners, such as applicants, consultants, and partners.
The final revised HCP Handbook reflects current FWS and NMFS HCP practices, guidance, and policies; incorporates lessons from implementing the HCP program over the past 30 years; and provides guidance to assist applicants and the Services to avoid common pitfalls that can delay HCP negotiations and development or processing of incidental take permits.
The goal is to provide a joint HCP Handbook that helps streamline the process and improve efficiency of the HCP program. To accomplish this, we reorganized the HCP Handbook so that it walks Services staff and stakeholders through each part of the HCP process, from the pre-application stage through incidental take permit issuance and HCP implementation through monitoring and compliance.
Some of the most significant changes we made include the following:
(1) Introduced the concept that applicants should “go fast by starting slowly,” which emphasizes the benefits to applicants of thorough pre-planning before jumping directly into HCP development, especially for landscape-level HCPs.
(2) Focused on the vital review and administrative steps without compromising legal integrity, in order to help streamline the process.
(3) Clarified the concept of minimizing and mitigating the impacts of taking “to the maximum extent practicable.”
(4) Ensured consistency with the most recent policies, such as the revised FWS Mitigation Policy, which was announced via a
(5) Clarified the use of implementing agreements.
(6) Updated and clarified permit duration.
(7) Provided guidance on how to comply with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (54 U.S.C. 300101
(8) Provided guidance on addressing climate change.
(9) Updated and clarified what should be addressed through adaptive management versus changed and unforeseen circumstances.
(10) Provided guidance on when to initiate the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
(11) Updated and clarified information concerning take analysis, responding to public comments, public notices, permit decision documents, compliance monitoring, and incidental take permit suspension and revocation.
We published a notice of availability and request for public comment on our draft joint HCP Handbook in the
We acknowledge that the manner in which this topic was presented in the draft may be confusing. Therefore, we have modified the language to provide clearer guidance that is consistent with the ESA's “maximum extent practicable” standard. We have also revised the language to better explain how applicants can meet the ESA's “maximum extent practicable” standard.
Regarding the comments concerning complex modeling, we suggest the use of various models to help applicants consider the effects of climate change while developing their conservation strategy. The Handbook does not impose a requirement to use specific models.
The Handbook does not change or undermine the “no surprises” rule, but rather it encourages applicants to consider a robust list of potential changed and unforeseen circumstances that could arise during the permit term. This will ensure successful implementation of the HCP and help to ensure that the conservation strategy and mitigation plan will endure in perpetuity, as required by the incidental take permit issuance criteria. We have provided clarifying language regarding the “No Surprises” rule.
16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a public meeting of the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council (Council). The Council provides advice about wildlife and habitat conservation endeavors that benefit wildlife resources; encourage partnership among the public, sporting conservation organizations, States, Native American tribes, and the Federal Government; and benefit recreational hunting.
The meeting will be held in Room 5160 at the Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street NW., Washington DC 20240.
Joshua Winchell, Council Designated Federal Officer, by U.S. mail at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; by telephone at (703) 358-2639; or by email at
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., we announce that the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council will hold a meeting.
Formed in February 2010, the Council provides advice about wildlife and habitat conservation endeavors that:
1. Benefit wildlife resources;
2. Encourage partnership among the public, sporting conservation organizations, States, Native American tribes, and the Federal Government; and
3. Benefit recreational hunting.
The Council advises the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, reporting through the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in consultation with the Director, Bureau of Land Management (BLM); Director, National Park Service (NPS); Chief, Forest Service (USFS); Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); and Administrator, Farm Services Agency (FSA). The Council's duties are strictly advisory and consist of, but are not limited to, providing recommendations for:
1. Implementing the Recreational Hunting and Wildlife Resource Conservation Plan—A Ten-Year Plan for Implementation;
2. Increasing public awareness of and support for the Wildlife Restoration Program;
3. Fostering wildlife and habitat conservation and ethics in hunting and shooting sports recreation;
4. Stimulating sportsmen and women's participation in conservation and management of wildlife and habitat resources through outreach and education;
5. Fostering communication and coordination among State, tribal, and Federal governments; industry; hunting and shooting sportsmen and women; wildlife and habitat conservation and management organizations; and the public;
6. Providing appropriate access to Federal lands for recreational shooting and hunting;
7. Providing recommendations to improve implementation of Federal conservation programs that benefit wildlife, hunting, and outdoor recreation on private lands; and
8. When requested by the Designated Federal Officer in consultation with the Council Chairperson, performing a variety of assessments or reviews of policies, programs, and efforts through the Council's designated subcommittees or workgroups.
Background information on the Council is available at
The Council will convene to consider issues including:
1. Wildlife habitat and health;
2. Funding for public lands and wildlife management;
3. Endangered Species Act; and
4. Other Council business.
The final agenda will be posted on the Internet at
To attend this meeting, register by close of business on the dates listed in Public Input. Please submit your name, time of arrival, email address, and phone number to the Council Designated Federal Officer (see
Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the Council to consider during the public meeting. Written statements must be received by the date in Public Input, so that the information may be made available to the Council for their consideration prior to this meeting. Written statements must be supplied to the Council Designated Federal Officer in both of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or rich text file).
Individuals or groups requesting to make an oral presentation at the meeting will be limited to 2 minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of 30 minutes for all speakers. Interested parties should contact the Council Designated Federal Officer, in writing (preferably via email; see
Summary minutes of the conference will be maintained by the Council Designated Federal Officer (see
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.
Notice of revision of a currently approved information collection, (1028-0098).
We (the U.S. Geological Survey) are notifying the public that we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the information collection request (ICR) described below. To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent
To ensure that your comments on this ICR are considered, OMB must receive them on or before January 20, 2017.
Please submit written comments on this information collection directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior, via email: (
Pam Fuller at (352) 264-3481 (telephone);
America is under siege by many harmful non-native species of plants, animals, and microorganisms. More than 6,500 nonindigenous species are now established in the United States, posing risks to native species, valued ecosystems, and human and wildlife health. These invaders extract a huge cost, an estimated $120 billion per year, to mitigate their harmful impacts. The current annual environmental, economic, and health-related costs of invasive species exceed those of all other natural disasters combined.
Through its Invasive Species Program (
As part of the USGS Invasive Species Program, the Nonindigenous Aquatic Species (NAS) database (
Information is collected from the public regarding the local occurrences of nonindigenous aquatic species, primarily fish, in open waters of the United States. This is vital information for early detection and rapid response for the possible eradication of organisms that may be considered invasive in a natural environment such as a lake, river, stream, or pond. Because it is not possible for USGS scientists to monitor all open waters for harmful nonindigenous organisms, the public can help by serving as the “eyes and ears” for the USGS's Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Program.
Members of the public who wish to report the occurrence of a suspected nonindigenous aquatic species, usually encountered through fishing or some other outdoor recreational activity, may fill out and submit a form (
NAS program staff maintains an alert system that contacts individuals via email when species occurrences are new to a county, drainage (HUC 8), or state. The alerts contain information on the specimen occurrence, such as the date and location of the occurrence, where the species is newly introduced, and any comments included by the reporter. In order for individuals (private or public citizens) to receive these alerts, they must register their first and last name (fictitious or real), email address, and a password on our alert registration form (
The USGS does not actively solicit or require observation or contact information from the public. Participation in the reporting process and the alert system is completely voluntary. The personally identifiable information given by individuals in these forms is stored internally in our sighting report and alert system databases, with all passwords encrypted to protect users' security.
We again invite comments concerning this ICR as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) how to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us and the OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability of the Records of Decision (RODs) and the Approved Resource Management Plans (RMPs) for the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs National Conservation Areas (NCA RMPs); and Approved Amendment to the St. George Field Office RMP (RMP Amendment) located in Washington County, Utah. The Utah State Director signed the RODs on December 21, 2016, which constitutes the final decision of the BLM and makes the Approved NCA RMPs and RMP Amendment effective.
Copies of the RODs and Approved NCA RMPs/RMP Amendment are available upon request from Interagency Public Information Center, 345 East Riverside Drive, St. George, UT 84790, or via the Internet at
Keith Rigtrup, RMP Planner, telephone 435-865-3000; address 345 East Riverside Drive, St. George, UT 84790; email
The Approved NCA RMPs provide comprehensive management plans for the long-term conservation and management of the Beaver Dam Wash NCA (63,480 acres of public land) and the Red Cliffs NCA (44,859 acres of public land). The NCA RMPs prescribe appropriate uses and conservation measures and are consistent with the planning process and other provisions directed by the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11, at Title 1, Subtitle O, hereinafter OPLMA). The need to amend the St. George Field Office RMP (approved in 1999) is also derived from OPLMA. Section 1977(b)(1) of OPLMA, directed the BLM to develop a comprehensive travel management plan for public lands in Washington County. The 1999 St. George Field Office RMP needed to be amended to modify certain existing off-highway vehicle (OHV) area designations (open, limited or closed) before this comprehensive travel management plan could be developed. The decisions contained in the Approved NCA RMPs and RMP Amendment do not apply to private and State lands within the boundaries of the NCAs or the St. George Field Office planning area.
The Approved NCA RMPs and RMP Amendment were developed from the Proposed NCA RMPs and RMP Amendment that were released, along with the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), on September 2, 2016. The Proposed RMPs and RMP Amendment combined components of the four alternatives that were presented in the Draft NCA RMPs and RMP Amendment, and associated Draft EIS, released for public review on July 17, 2015. The NCA RMPs address the long-term management of public land resources and land uses, while fulfilling the conservation purpose of the NCAs for which the public lands received Congressional designation through OPLMA.
There were 41 protests of the Proposed NCA RMPs and RMP Amendment. All valid protests were resolved during the BLM Director's Plan Protest Resolution Process, prior to the signing of the RODs. The Governor's Consistency Review, which also took place after the release of the proposed plans, identified three concerns. The
Certain decisions in the Approved NCA RMPs are implementation decisions and are appealable to the Interior Board of Land Appeals. These implementation level decisions are noted in the RODs for the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs NCAs (under livestock grazing and recreation) and are appealable under 43 CFR part 4. Any party adversely affected by the implementation level decisions may appeal within 30 days of publication of this Notice of Availability in accordance with the provisions of 43 CFR, part 4, subpart E. The appeal should state the specific numbered decision and the rationale for the appeal. Within 30 days of the posting of this decision (“date of service”), a Notice of Appeal must be filed in writing to: State Director-BLM Utah State Office 440 West 200 South, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1345. At the same time, a copy of the Notice of Appeal must also be sent to: Regional Solicitor—U.S. Department of the Interior, 6201 Federal Building, 1235 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138-1180.
Please consult the appropriate regulations (43 CFR, part 4, subpart E) for further appeal requirements.
40 CFR 1506.6.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
We, the Bureau of Reclamation, intend to submit a request for renewal of an existing approved information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) titled, Individual Landholder's and Farm Operator's Certification and Reporting Forms for Acreage Limitation, 43 CFR part 426 and 43 CFR part 428, OMB Control Number 1006-0005.
Submit written comments on this information collection request on or before February 21, 2017.
Send written comments or requests for copies of the proposed forms to Stephanie McPhee, Bureau of Reclamation, Office of Policy and Administration, 84-55000, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225-0007; or via email to
Stephanie McPhee at (303) 445-2897.
This information collection is required under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (RRA), Acreage Limitation Rules and Regulations, 43 CFR part 426, and Information Requirements for Certain Farm Operations In Excess of 960 Acres and the Eligibility of Certain Formerly Excess Land, 43 CFR part 428. This information collection requires certain landholders (direct or indirect landowners or lessees) and farm operators to complete forms demonstrating their compliance with the acreage limitation provisions of Federal reclamation law. The forms in this information collection are submitted to districts that use the information to establish each landholder's status with respect to landownership limitations, full-cost pricing thresholds, lease requirements, and other provisions of Federal reclamation law. In addition, forms are submitted by certain farm operators to provide information concerning the services they provide and the nature of their farm operating arrangements. All landholders whose entire westwide landholdings total 40 acres or less are exempt from the requirement to submit RRA forms. Landholders who are “qualified recipients” have RRA forms submittal thresholds of 80 acres or 240 acres depending on the district's RRA forms submittal threshold category where the land is held. Only farm operators who provide multiple services to more than 960 acres held in trusts or by legal entities are required to submit forms.
No changes have been made to the currently approved RRA forms and the corresponding instructions to generate the proposed RRA forms that will be effective in the 2018 water year.
We invite your comments on:
(a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use;
(b) the accuracy of our estimated time and cost burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including increased use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
We will summarize all comments received regarding this notice. We will publish that summary in the
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—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
We, the Bureau of Reclamation, intend to submit a request for the renewal of an existing approved information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) titled, Forms to Determine Compliance by Certain Landholders, 43 CFR part 426, OMB Control Number 1006-0023.
Submit written comments on the information collection request on or before February 21, 2017.
Send written comments or requests for copies of the proposed forms to Stephanie McPhee, Bureau of Reclamation, Office of Policy and Administration, 84-55000, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225-0007; or via email to
Stephanie McPhee at (303) 445-2897.
No changes have been made to the currently approved RRA forms and the corresponding instructions to generate the proposed RRA forms that will be effective in the 2018 water year.
We invite your comments on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use;
(b) the accuracy of our estimated time and cost burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including increased use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
We will summarize all comments received regarding this notice. We will publish that summary in the
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—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
We, the Bureau of Reclamation, intend to submit a request for renewal of an existing approved information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) titled, Certification Summary Form, Reporting Summary Form for Acreage Limitation,.
Submit written comments on this information collection request on or before February 21, 2017.
Send written comments or requests for copies of the proposed forms to Stephanie McPhee, Bureau of Reclamation, Office of Policy and Administration, 84-55000, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225-0007; or via email to
Stephanie McPhee at (303) 445-2897.
This information collection is required under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (RRA), Acreage Limitation Rules and Regulations, 43 CFR part 426, and Information Requirements for Certain Farm Operations In Excess of 960 Acres and the Eligibility of Certain Formerly Excess Land, 43 CFR part 428. The forms in this information collection are to be used by district offices to summarize individual landholder (direct or indirect landowner or lessee) and farm operator certification and reporting forms. This information allows us to establish water user compliance with Federal reclamation law.
No changes have been made to the currently approved RRA forms and the corresponding instructions to generate the proposed RRA forms that will be effective in the 2018 water year.
We invite your comments on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use;
(b) the accuracy of our estimated time and cost burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including increased use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
We will summarize all comments received regarding this notice. We will publish that summary in the
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—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
On December 15, 2016, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Stipulation to Modify Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in the lawsuit entitled
In a supplemental complaint, the United States, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the State of Connecticut, on behalf of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, allege that the City of West Haven violated the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251,
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the stipulation. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed stipulation may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $3.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Office of Management and Budget.
Revisions to Appendix C of OMB Circular A-94.
The Office of Management and Budget revised Circular A-94 in 1992. The revised Circular specified certain discount rates to be updated annually when the interest rate and inflation assumptions used to prepare the Budget of the United States Government were changed. These discount rates are found in Appendix C of the revised Circular. The updated discount rates are shown below. The discount rates in Appendix C are to be used for cost-effectiveness analysis, including lease-purchase analysis, as specified in the revised Circular. They do not apply to regulatory analysis.
The revised discount rates will be in effect through December 2017.
Gideon Lukens, Office of Economic Policy, Office of Management and Budget, (202) 395-3316.
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.
All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
All comments should be addressed to Frances Teel, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Mail Code JF-000, Washington DC 20546-0001.
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.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Contractors performing research and development are required by statutes, NASA implementing regulations, and OMB policy to submit reports of inventions, patents, data, and copyrights, including the utilization and disposition of same. The NASA New Technology Summary Report reporting form is being used for this purpose.
NASA FAR Supplement clauses for patent rights and new technology encourage the contractor to use an electronic form and provide a hyperlink to the electronic New Technology Reporting Web (eNTRe) site
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. They will also become a matter of public record.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Memorandum of understanding; renewal.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) renewed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) supporting cooperative nuclear safety research. Current cooperative research technical areas include spent fuel neutron absorber performance, cable aging, external flooding hazards, digital I&C and human factors, fire risk, long-term operation, nondestructive examination, probabilistic fracture mechanics, primary water stress corrosion cracking, probabilistic risk assessment, seismic risk, and steam generator tube research. The NRC and EPRI first signed an MOU in 1997 to encourage cooperation in nuclear safety research. The MOU renewal extends cooperation between NRC and EPRI from September 30, 2016 to September 30, 2021.
The MOU was effective September 30, 2016.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0260 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:
•
•
•
Nicholas DiFrancesco, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1115, email:
The NRC and EPRI each conduct research on nuclear reactor safety. The NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research conducts independent research in all areas regulated by the NRC including ongoing and potential safety issues, risk-informed and performance-based regulation, and operating experience analysis. The EPRI is engaged in research and development in the public interest and on behalf of Industry with respect to the production, transmission, distribution, and utilization of electric power including research designed to improve the safety, reliability, and economy of nuclear power plants. While the research efforts of the NRC and EPRI may be conducted for different purposes, the underlying data and the results obtained have common value to both the NRC and EPRI. Accordingly, to conserve resources and to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, both the NRC and EPRI agreed to cooperate in selected research efforts and to share information and/or costs related to such research whenever such cooperation and cost sharing is appropriate and mutually beneficial.
The MOU is authorized pursuant to Section 31 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Section 205 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. The roles, responsibilities, terms, and conditions of the MOU should not be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with, and shall not supersede, applicable federal laws and regulations, as well as EPRI's status as a 501(c)(3) scientific research organization for the public benefit and the NRC's status as an independent regulatory agency.
The MOU describes the parameters within which cooperative research programs between the NRC and EPRI will be considered and conducted. Individual cooperative research programs are described in addenda to the MOU (“Cooperative Research Programs”).
The MOU was signed by the NRC on September 28, 2016, and by EPRI on September 30, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16223A497).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing recent Postal Service filings for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 14, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 14, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 14, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 14, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 14, 2016, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
On May 24, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On December 9, 2016, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2 (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-58).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to extend its program that allows transactions to take place at a price that is below $1 per option contract until July 5, 2017. 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 purpose of this filing is to extend the Pilot Program
An “accommodation” or “cabinet” trade refers to trades in listed options on the Exchange that are worthless and typically not actively traded. Cabinet trading is generally conducted in accordance with Exchange Rules, except as provided in Exchange Rule 968NY, Accommodation Transactions (Cabinet Trades), which sets forth specific procedures for engaging in cabinet trades. Rule 968NY currently provides for cabinet transactions to occur via open outcry at a cabinet price of a $1 per option contract in any options series open for trading on the Exchange, except that the Rule is not applicable to trading in option classes participating in the Penny Pilot Program. Under the procedures, bids and offers (whether opening or closing a position) at a price of $1 per option contract may be represented in the trading crowd by a Floor Broker or by a Market Maker or provided in response to a request by a Trading Official, a Floor Broker or a Market Maker, but must yield priority to all resting orders in the Cabinet (those orders held by the Trading Official, and which resting cabinet orders may be closing only). Provided that the buyer and the seller yield to orders resting in the cabinet book, opening cabinet bids can trade with opening cabinet offers at $1 per option contract.
The Exchange has temporarily amended the procedures through January 5, 2017 to allow transactions to take place in open outcry at a price of at least $0 but less than $1 per option contract. These lower-priced transactions are permitted to be traded pursuant to the same procedures applicable to $1 cabinet trades, except that (i) bids and offers for opening transactions are only permitted to accommodate closing transactions in order to limit use of the procedure to liquidations of existing positions, and (ii) the procedures are also made available for trading in option classes participating in the Penny Pilot Program.
As with other accommodation liquidations under Rule 968NY, transactions that occur for less than $1 will not be disseminated to the public on the consolidated tape. In addition, as with other accommodation liquidations under Rule 968NY, the transactions will be exempt from the Consolidated Options Audit Trail (“COATS”) requirements of Exchange Rule 955NY, Order Format and System Entry Requirements. However, the Exchange will maintain quotation, order and transaction information for the transactions in the same format as the COATS data is maintained. In this regard, all transactions for less than $1 must be reported to the Exchange
The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is to extend an established pilot program for an additional six months and continue to facilitate ATP Holders ability to close positions in worthless or not actively traded series.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to remove direct debit for market data products, as described in more detail below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to remove direct debit for market data products. Today, the Exchange requires all of its members to provide a clearing account number at the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) for purposes of permitting the Exchange to debit any undisputed or final fees, fines, charges and/or other monetary sanctions or monies due and owing to the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes that this rule change become operative on December 1, 2016. On November 23, 2016, the Exchange applied direct debit to its members for October 2016 billing
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that its proposal to remove the fees for market data products from the direct debit process is reasonable because it will not place any administrative burden on its members who are already subject to the same billing process on all other Nasdaq exchanges.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to remove the market data fees as described above from the direct debit process is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply to all members in a uniform manner.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. With this proposal, the amended debit process would apply uniformly to all ISE members.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 23, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) issued an order pursuant to its authority under Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS (“Sub-Penny Rule”)
The Exchange now seeks to extend the exemption until June 30, 2017.
The limited and temporary exemption extended by this Order is subject to modification or revocation if at any time the Commission determines that such action is necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Responsibility for compliance with any applicable provisions of the Federal securities laws must rest with the persons relying on the exemption
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 4554 to require alternative trading systems (“ATSs”) to submit additional order information to FINRA.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
FINRA proposes to amend Rule 4554 (Alternative Trading Systems—Recording and Reporting Requirements of Order and Execution Information for NMS Stocks) to require ATSs to provide additional order sequence information on reports submitted to the Order Audit Trail System (“OATS”). In May 2016, the SEC approved Rule 4554 to further enhance FINRA's ability to reconstruct an ATS's order book and better perform its order-based surveillance, which includes surveillance for layering, quote spoofing and mid-point pricing manipulation. To accomplish this, Rule 4554 requires ATSs to report order information for each order they receive in an NMS stock beyond that set forth in the OATS rules, such as order re-pricing events (
Rule 4554(b) requires that all ATSs report eight categories of information at the time of order receipt, including the sequence number assigned to the order event by the ATS's matching engine.
FINRA notes that the expansion of the requirement to report a sequence number with all order events mirrors the proposed requirement from
In response to a comment on the proposed rule change filed with the Commission, FINRA clarified that it was not mandating a particular or uniform format by which ATSs must report sequence numbers and that reporting sequence numbers as they currently exist in an ATS will satisfy the requirement.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change no later than 30 days following Commission notice of the filing of the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The implementation date will be no later than 145 days after the date of the filing.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes will apply equally to all similarly situated ATSs. FINRA also notes that the proposed rule change is designed to assist FINRA in meeting its regulatory obligations by enhancing its ability to efficiently surveil activity occurring within ATSs and across markets. FINRA believes that, because ATSs are already required to include sequence numbers on new order reports pursuant to Rule 4554 as approved by the Commission, including sequence numbers on additional order events will not be overly burdensome.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to remove direct debit for market data products, as described in more detail below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to remove direct debit for market data products. Today, the Exchange requires all of its members to provide a clearing account number at the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) for purposes of permitting the Exchange to debit any undisputed or final fees, fines, charges and/or other monetary sanctions or monies due and owing to the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes that this rule change become operative on December 1, 2016. On November 23, 2016, the Exchange applied direct debit to its members for October 2016 billing
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that its proposal to remove the fees for market data products from the direct debit process is reasonable because it will not place any administrative burden on its members who are already subject to the same billing process on all other Nasdaq exchanges.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to remove the market data fees as described above from the direct debit process is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply to all members in a uniform manner.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. With this proposal, the amended debit process would apply uniformly to all ISE Gemini members.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to extend its program that allows transactions to take place at a price that is below $1 per option contract until July 5, 2017. 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 purpose of this filing is to extend the Pilot Program
An “accommodation” or “cabinet” trade refers to trades in listed options on the Exchange that are worthless or not actively traded. Cabinet trading is generally conducted in accordance with Exchange Rules, except as provided in Exchange Rule 6.80, Accommodation Transactions (Cabinet Trades), which sets forth specific procedures for engaging in cabinet trades. Rule 6.80 currently provides for cabinet transactions to occur via open outcry at a cabinet price of a $1 per option contract in any options series open for trading on the Exchange, except that the Rule is not applicable to trading in option classes participating in the Penny Pilot Program. Under the procedures, bids and offers (whether opening or closing a position) at a price of $1 per option contract may be represented in the trading crowd by a Floor Broker or by a Market Maker or provided in response to a request by a Trading Official, a Floor Broker or a Market Maker, but must yield priority to all resting orders in the Cabinet (those orders held by the Trading Official, and which resting cabinet orders may be closing only). Provided that both the buyer and the seller yield to orders resting in the cabinet book, opening cabinet bids can trade with opening cabinet offers at $1 per option contract.
The Exchange has temporarily amended the procedures through January 5, 2017 to allow transactions to take place in open outcry at a price of at least $0 but less than $1 per option contract. These lower-priced transactions are permitted to be traded pursuant to the same procedures applicable to $1 cabinet trades, except that (i) bids and offers for opening transactions are only permitted to accommodate closing transactions in order to limit use of the procedure to liquidations of existing positions, and (ii) the procedures are also made available for trading in option classes participating in the Penny Pilot Program.
As with other accommodation liquidations under Rule 6.80, transactions that occur for less than $1 will not be disseminated to the public on the consolidated tape. In addition, as with other accommodation liquidations under Rule 6.80, the transactions will be exempt from the Consolidated Options Audit Trail (“COATS”) requirements of Exchange Rule 6.67 Order Format and System Entry Requirements. However, the Exchange will maintain quotation, order and transaction information for the transactions in the same format as the COATS data is maintained. In this regard, all transactions for less than $1 must be reported to the Exchange following the close of each business day.
The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
On October 18, 2016, under its emergency processing procedures, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the information collection activities associated with FRA's Railworthiness Directive No. 2016-01. This 6-month approval expires on April 30, 2017. Since OMB's approval of the information collection activities associated with Railworthiness Directive No. 2016-01, on November 18, 2016, FRA issued a revised Railworthiness Directive which supersedes the original Directive. FRA is now seeking approval for the revised information collection activities and associated burden listed below. Before submitting this information collection request (ICR) to OMB for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific
Comments must be received no later than February 21, 2017.
Submit written comments on any or all of the following proposed activities by mail to either: Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590; or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard stating, “Comments on OMB Control Number 2130-0616.” Alternatively, comments may be faxed to (202) 493-6216 or (202) 493-6497, or emailed to Mr. Brogan at
Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Safety Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6292) or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll free.)
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60 days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval to implement them. 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a). Accordingly, FRA invites interested persons to comment on the following summary of proposed information collection activities regarding: (1) Whether the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether the activities will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the information collection activities, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on the public by automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques and other forms of information technology (
FRA believes soliciting public comment will promote its efforts to reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information that its actions mandate. In summary, FRA reasons that comments received will advance three objectives: (1) Reduce reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in a “user-friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested.
Below is a brief summary of currently approved information collection activities that FRA will submit for clearance by OMB as required under the PRA:
Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b), 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice announces final environmental actions taken by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for a project in Chapel Hill and Durham, NC. The purpose of this notice is to announce publicly the environmental decisions by FTA on the subject project and to activate the limitation on any claims that may challenge these final environmental actions.
By this notice, FTA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to Section 139(l) of Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.). A claim seeking judicial review of FTA actions announced herein for the listed public transportation project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before May 22, 2017.
Nancy-Ellen Zusman, Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, (312) 353-2577 or Meghan Kelley, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Environmental Programs, (202) 366-6098. FTA is located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Notice is hereby given that FTA has taken final agency actions by issuing certain approvals for the public transportation project listed below. The actions on the project, as well as the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the documentation issued in connection with the project to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in other documents in the FTA administrative record for the project. Interested parties may contact either the project sponsor or the relevant FTA Regional Office for more information. Contact information for FTA's Regional Offices may be found at
This notice applies to all FTA decisions on the listed project as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including, but not limited to, NEPA [42 U.S.C. 4321-4375], Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303], Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 470f], and the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q]. This notice does not, however, alter or extend the limitation period for challenges of project decisions subject to previous notices published in the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Request for public comment on proposed collection of information.
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections. This document describes one collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.
Comments must be received on or before February 21, 2017.
Refer to the docket notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and send your comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
John Kindelberger, Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., NSA-310, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Kindelberger's phone number is 202-366-4696 and his email address is
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must publish a document in the
Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS) were mandated in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 138, so that drivers are warned when the pressure in one or more of the vehicle's tires has fallen to 25 percent or more below the placard pressure, or a minimum level of pressure specified in the standard, whichever pressure is higher, and may be informed about which of the four tires is underinflated. As of September 1, 2007, after a phase-in period beginning on October 5, 2005, TPMS was required on all new light vehicles (
Executive Order 12866 requires Federal agencies to evaluate their existing regulations and programs and measure their effectiveness in achieving their objectives. Since the phase-in of TPMS, there has been only one evaluation of TPMS. The TPMS-SS (OMB #2127-0626) was conducted in 2011, as a special study through the infrastructure of the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS), to collect nationally representative data on how effective TPMS was in reducing underinflation in the on-road fleet of passenger vehicles. Analysis of the survey results indicated that direct TPMS is 55.6-percent effective at preventing severe underinflation as defined in FMVSS No. 138. However, effectiveness was substantially lower in vehicles that were 6-7 years old at the time of the survey. One explanation as to why this is true was the possibility that the drivers of these older vehicles were not taking all the maintenance actions (
Additionally, on December 4, 2015, President Obama signed the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-94) into law. An amendment (Section 24115) directs the Secretary of Transportation to update the standard on tire pressure monitoring systems, FMVSS No. 138, to ensure that they cannot be overridden, reset or recalibrated in a way that will prevent the system from identifying a tire that is significantly underinflated. The Act also states that the revised requirements shall not contain any provision that has the effect of prohibiting the availability of direct or indirect tire pressure monitoring systems. Data are needed to help inform the required rulemaking. For this purpose, the design of the TPMS-ORRC field survey has been changed from a convenience sample to a probability sample, allowing nationally representative estimates; this revision also adds a module for indirect TPMS.
The previously approved Field Survey component of the TPMS-ORRC has not yet been conducted. In this revision, we add a module to check tire pressure for vehicles with indirect TPMS (about five percent of the relevant fleet), change to a probability sample, and reduce the overall sample to 6300 to keep the burden similar. A survey of a probability sample, conducted in twenty-four nationwide geographic primary sampling units that were previously selected and weighted for national representation in NHTSA's Crash Investigation Sampling System, will collect 6,300 inspections of eligible passenger vehicles, and interview drivers of these vehicles. Focus will be on assessing the operating status of the TPMS in these vehicles and interviewing drivers with and without operating TPMSs, regarding their knowledge about, and habits related to, the TPMS in their vehicle. Also, drivers of vehicles with indirect TPMS (expected to be about five percent of surveyed drivers) will be interviewed with a brief set of questions and recording of tire pressures. We also plan to offer a voluntary check for outstanding recalls to increase participation. The overall sample has been reduced from 7,000 to 6,300 to keep the burden essentially the same in light of the added module and also to adhere to the survey budget. The change from convenience sample to probability sample, using the 24 Primary Sampling Units of NHTSA's Crash Investigation Sampling System, will allow statistically nationally representative estimates, which were not possible under the convenience sample. Data collection is expected to take place beginning in June, 2017, and last five months, at fueling stations (individual stations will only be visited for a short time as the survey moves from site to site).
The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. chap. 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.95
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of Advisory Committee Charter renewals.
In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee ACT (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and after consultation with the General Services Administration, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has determined that the following Federal advisory committee is vital to the mission of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and renewing its charter would be in the public interest. Consequently, the charter for the following Federal advisory committee is renewed for a two-year period, beginning on the dates listed below:
The Secretary has also renewed the charters for the following statutorily authorized Federal advisory committees for a two-year period, beginning on the dates listed below:
Jeffrey Moragne, Committee Management Office, Department of Veterans Affairs, Advisory Committee Management Office (00AC), 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420; telephone (202) 266-4660; or email at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Final rule.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) amends its regulations to implement provisions of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act that pertain to the designation, protection and sharing of Critical Electric Infrastructure Information. Additionally, the Commission amends its regulations addressing Critical Energy Infrastructure Information.
This rule will become effective February 21, 2017.
1. The Commission amends 18 CFR 375.309, 375.313, 388.112 and 388.113 of its regulations to implement the requirements of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act as set forth in section 215A(d)(2) of the Federal Power Act (FPA).
2. Shortly after September 11, 2001, the Commission took steps to protect information that it considered Critical Energy Infrastructure Information.
3. Each year, over 7,000 documents are submitted to the Commission's eLibrary system as Critical Energy Infrastructure Information. The Commission also receives approximately 200 requests for Critical Energy Infrastructure Information each year. Requests for Critical Energy Infrastructure Information are submitted by, among others, public utilities, gas pipelines, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities, hydroelectric developers, academics, landowners, public interest groups, researchers, renewable energy organizations, consultants, and federal agencies.
4. The Commission's current Critical Energy Infrastructure Information process is designed to limit the distribution of sensitive infrastructure information to those individuals with a need to know in order to avoid having sensitive information fall into the hands of those who may use it to attack the Nation's infrastructure.
5. On December 4, 2015, the President signed the FAST Act into law. The FAST Act,
6. On June 16, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) to amend its regulations to implement the provisions of the FAST Act pertaining to the designation, protection and sharing of CEII.
7. The Commission adopts the majority of amendments proposed in the NOPR. The Commission determines that the amendments comply with the requirements of the FAST Act and better ensure the secure treatment of CEII. In addition, as discussed below, the Commission modifies or otherwise clarifies certain proposals made in the NOPR based on our review of the comments. In the discussion below, we address the following issues regarding the CEII amendments: (A) Scope, purpose, and definitions; (B) criteria and procedures for determining what constitutes CEII; (C) duty to protect CEII; (D) sanctions for unauthorized disclosure of CEII; (E) voluntary sharing of CEII; and (F) requests for access to CEII.
8. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to amend section 388.113 to include procedures for submitting, designating, handling, sharing and disseminating Critical Electric Infrastructure Information submitted to or generated by the Commission.
9. APPA and MISO maintain that CEII should not include all Critical Energy Infrastructure Information.
10. TAPS and APPA maintain that the Commission should revise the CEII definition to include additional language from the FAST Act. Specifically, TAPS and APPA recommend that the proposed definition of CEII incorporate section 215A(d)(1)(B), which provides that CEII “shall not be made available by any Federal, State, political subdivision or tribal authority pursuant to any Federal, State, political subdivision or tribal law requiring public disclosure of information or records.”
16 U.S.C. 824(f)
11. TAPS recommends that the Commission delete from the definition of Critical Energy Infrastructure Information the requirement that such information be exempt from FOIA.
12. Other commenters seek clarification on the scope of the CEII definition. Specifically, the Trade Associations request that the Commission clarify whether the name or location of an electric system, asset, owner or operator could be protected under the proposed CEII definition.
13. Powerex requests that the Commission specify whether the new definition of CEII expands the scope of information currently defined as Critical Energy Infrastructure Information.
14. TAPS, APPA and the Trade Associations recommend revisions to the CEII Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA).
15. With respect to the proposed edits to sections 388.112 and 388.113 to separate the Commission's treatment of privileged material from the Commission's treatment of CEII, MISO suggests that the title for section 388.112 be changed to “Submission and treatment of privileged information” and section 388.113 be changed to “Submission and treatment of Critical Electric Infrastructure Information (CEII).”
16. The Trade Associations request that the Commission expressly state in the amended regulations that the CEII process is not intended to, and should not be interpreted to, supersede or otherwise affect existing laws, regulations, and agency rules that separately safeguard such data.
17. As discussed below, the Commission, with limited modifications, adopts the amendments proposed in the NOPR addressing the scope, purpose and definitions in the CEII regulations. The Commission determines that the amendments are consistent with the requirements of the FAST Act and will result in more secure treatment of CEII.
18. The Commission disagrees with APPA and MISO that the CEII definition should not include Critical Energy Infrastructure Information and that there should be separate processes for electric and non-electric CEII. Our determination is based on the plain language of the FAST Act. Section 215A(a)(3) defines Critical Electric Infrastructure Information to “include information that qualifies as critical energy infrastructure information under the Commission's regulations.”
19. Including Critical Energy Infrastructure Information within the definition of CEII is not inconsistent with the provisions of section 215A(d)(10), as APPA maintains. First, section 215A(d)(10) states that removal of a CEII designation may be appropriate when the disclosure of such information “could no longer be used to impair the security or reliability of the bulk-power system
20. Moreover, the Commission determines that a single CEII process for Critical Energy/Electric Infrastructure Information is the most efficient way to fulfill the statutory mandate of the FAST Act and to avoid any confusion that could result from different processes for different types of critical infrastructure information.
21. APPA's assertion that the Commission is “falling short” of meeting Congress's intent is without merit. In the proposed regulations, the Commission complies with each provision in section 215A(d)(2) with regard to designating and handling Critical Electric Infrastructure Information. The fact that those rules also apply to Critical Energy Infrastructure Information does not diminish the Commission's compliance under the FAST Act. Rather, in this regard, the Commission's determination meets Congress's intent. Moreover, APPA's argument that “information related to cyber threats and defensive measures should not be `protected' under a designation regime that also provides for potentially involuntary access by any federal employee . . ., landowners [or]any person who is a participant in a Commission proceeding . . .” and others has no basis in the text of the FAST Act. APPA notably cites to nothing in the FAST Act to support that argument.
22. The Commission agrees with TAPS and APPA that the Commission's regulations should incorporate the
23. The Commission disagrees with TAPS that the Commission should delete from the definition of Critical Energy Infrastructure Information the provision that states that Critical Energy Infrastructure Information “[i]s exempt from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.”
24. In response to the Trade Associations' comments seeking clarification if a name or location of a facility should be protected as CEII, the Commission's current practice is that information that “simply give[s] the general location of the critical infrastructure” or simply provides the name of the facility is not CEII.
25. In response to NRECA's request that the Commission clarify that material treated as Critical Energy Infrastructure Information under the Commission's current regulations would, in most circumstances, be treated as CEII under the amended regulations, we note that such information should continue to qualify as CEII. We also note, however, in response to Powerex's comment, that it is conceivable that Critical Electric Infrastructure Information may include information that would not fall within the existing definition of Critical Energy Infrastructure Information.
26. We agree with Powerex's comment that the Final Rule should only address CEII and not other types of information. In response to Powerex's concerns about a party's due process rights, under the amended CEII regulations the Commission will balance the need to protect critical information with the potential need of parties participating in Commission proceedings to access CEII. For example, the Commission's regulations include a process for parties to access information directly from other parties in a Commission proceeding.
27. In response to comments from TAPS, APPA, and the Trade Associations, the Commission agrees that the CEII NDA should reference the provision in section 215A(d)(1) that CEII is exempt from disclosure under any Federal, State, political subdivision or tribal law requiring public disclosure. We disagree that the State Agency NDA should be eliminated because it reinforces the minimum protections applicable to CEII that the Commission may provide to states as well as provides for additional protections beyond the exemptions in State public disclosure laws.
28. Finally, the Commission declines to adopt the revision suggested by the Trade Associations to expressly state that the CEII regulations are not intended to supersede other laws, regulations, and agency rules that separately safeguard such data.
29. Section 215A(d)(2)(A) requires the Commission to “establish criteria and procedures to designate information as critical electric infrastructure information.” In the NOPR, the Commission proposed criteria and procedures for the handling of CEII consistent with section 215A(d)(2)(A).
30. Commenters request that the Commission provide more detail on what qualifies as CEII.
31. WIRAB and APS commented that additional designation guidance is needed in order to avoid submitters' over-designation of documents as CEII. Specifically, WIRAB and APS recommend that the Commission establish separate criteria for determining when information qualifies as CEII on the basis of national security, economic security or public health or safety.
32. The Trade Associations maintain that the Commission's regulations should explicitly designate as CEII information “related to compliance with the Reliability Standards as critical electric infrastructure information and exempt it from disclosure under 388.113(f).”
33. APPA and the Trade Associations raise concerns about how the designation criteria will apply to DOE.
34. Finally, NRC requests that the Commission establish a generic CEII designation that other federal agencies can use to designate information.
35. The Commission is not persuaded that more detailed guidance or additional designation criteria in the CEII regulations are necessary. FPA section 215A(a)(2) defines Critical Electric Infrastructure as “a system or asset of the bulk-power system, whether physical or virtual, the incapacity or destruction of which would negatively affect national security, economic security, public health or safety, or any combination of such matters.” FPA section 215A(a)(3) includes Critical Energy Infrastructure Information within CEII. We believe that the regulations, as proposed, provide adequate guidance for a submitter or Commission staff to determine whether information is CEII and for the CEII Coordinator to make a determination. In addition, the criteria and designation procedures adopted herein are informed by the Commission's experience of implementing and administering the Critical Energy Infrastructure Information regulations over the past fifteen years.
36. The Commission does not agree that the scope of CEII should be modified, as suggested by the Trade Associations, to encompass information “related to compliance with the Reliability Standards.” The Trade Associations' proposal is unduly broad and inconsistent with the FAST Act because it could lead to all infrastructure information, whether critical or not, being treated as CEII. For the same reason, we do not agree that the blanket presumption that information relating to compliance with Reliability Standards is CEII, proposed by the Trade Associations, is appropriate. Like other forms of CEII, however, information on compliance with Reliability Standards may be treated as CEII if the submitter justifies its treatment as CEII under the Commission's regulations.
37. In response to HRC's comments that documents listed as CEII could be better described in eLibrary, the level of detail needed for a document description in eLibrary is better addressed in our submission guidelines rather than in our regulations.
38. In response to HRC's request for an additional process to obtain a ruling on CEII when it is filed, we believe that such a process is unnecessary, as entities seeking access to information filed as CEII may submit a FOIA or CEII request at any time, including promptly after that information is filed with the Commission. We further conclude that the proposed procedures are adequate for the Commission to process information submitted to the Commission, or generated by the Commission, as CEII.
39. In response to the comments from APPA and the Trade Associations, the Commission declines to revise the regulations to identify specific designation criteria and CEII procedures for DOE. Section 215A(d)(3) of the FAST Act provides that information “may be designated” by the Commission and DOE pursuant to the criteria and procedures that the Commission establishes.
40. Although the Commission recognizes that other agencies have an obligation to protect certain information in their custody, the FAST Act does not grant other federal agencies the authority to designate information as
41. By this change, the Commission does not limit the discretion of other federal agencies to protect sensitive information in their custody but provides a mechanism for agencies to consult with the Commission's CEII Coordinator regarding the treatment or designation of such information as CEII.
42. The Commission proposed to treat information submitted with a justification for CEII treatment as CEII, unless the submitter is otherwise notified by the Commission.
43. APS asks that the Commission “deem” information as CEII at the time an entity submits the information to the Commission.
44. INGAA, NERC, and the Trade Associations request that the Commission change the comment period afforded to submitters of CEII to respond to a request for CEII from five calendar days to five business days, ten working days, or at least 30 calendar days, respectively.
45. MISO, Trade Associations, CEA, and HRC submitted comments recommending changes to the Commission's processing and evaluation of justification statements that must accompany a submitter's request for CEII treatment. MISO is concerned that the Commission may automatically make information public if the submission fails to meet the Commission's regulations. Thus, MISO recommends that amended section 388.113(d)(1) be revised to make clear that failure to provide the justification or other required information will be considered in the determination of whether the information will be maintained as CEII by the Commission, but it will not result in automatic disclosure of the information.
46. The Trade Associations maintain information submitted to the Commission for designation as CEII that ultimately is determined not to be CEII should not automatically be disclosed to the public because such information may be subject to other laws and regulations restricting disclosure of the information.
47. CEA recommends that the Commission provide the submitter with an opportunity to retract a submission and re-submit it with the appropriate justification.
48. As an initial matter, we correct the statement in the NOPR erroneously stating that under our current practice, “the Commission deems the designation on a submission accepted as submitted.”
49. As to the comments submitted by Tacoma Power, the Commission is not persuaded that a special expedited process for designations in the event a State entity is facing a public records request is needed, because State and local entities may consult with the CEII Coordinator as to whether information that is subject to a State, local, or other type of records request is CEII under the Commission's regulations.
50. In response to the comments from APS and CEA about the procedures for informing a submitter of a potential release or re-designation of CEII, the Commission's current practices are sufficient to comply with the FAST Act
51. The Commission is not persuaded that it is necessary to make the changes proposed by MISO and CEA regarding treatment of information that is filed in a manner that does not meet our regulations. The amended regulations do not mandate automatic disclosure of the information. Furthermore, even if the Commission were to make information public, the Commission will provide notice to the submitter prior to any determination.
52. The Commission adopts INGAA's proposal to change the comment period from five calendar days to five business days, and will change all references in section 388.113 from “calendar” days to “business” days. Allowing more time is not warranted because the issue of whether to release CEII is relatively limited and, as a general matter, the Commission endeavors to respond to requests for CEII as soon as possible. In addition, the Commission notes that submitters can request an extension of that time-period to submit comments to the Commission.
53. The Commission proposed that information downloaded by Commission staff from private databases that are accessed pursuant to Commission order or regulation will be maintained as non-public information consistent with the Commission's internal controls.
54. Most commenters support treating data downloaded from the NERC databases as non-public. NERC agrees with the proposal to treat information downloaded from its databases as non-public, but it seeks clarification as to whether the Commission intends to designate the information as privileged and CEII.
55. The Trade Associations recommend that the Commission treat the NERC databases information that Commission staff does not download as inextricably intertwined with downloaded information and thereby treat all of the information on each database as CEII.
CEA requests that the Commission respect Canadian information that may be accessed through any private databases accessible to the Commission.
56. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to treat information
57. The Commission clarifies that information downloaded by the Commission or its staff from a non-public NERC database will be treated as non-public information and will be afforded the same treatment as CEII. Thus, in the event the Commission receives a request for the information or the Commission determines such information should be disclosed, the Commission will “provide the owner of the database or information (as appropriate) with an opportunity to comment on the request.”
58. Finally, as to CEA's comment regarding Canadian information on other databases, we believe that CEA's request goes beyond the scope of this rulemaking proceeding, which is limited to amending the Commission's regulations regarding CEII.
59. For Commission-generated information, the NOPR explained that the CEII Coordinator, after consultation with the appropriate Commission Office Director, will determine whether the information meets the definition of CEII.
60. The Trade Associations request that the Commission establish a process in which appropriate stakeholders may
61. The Commission determines that there is no need for stakeholder participation in the designation of Commission-generated information. The Commission has the expertise and experience to make determinations about whether Commission-generated information is CEII. And as a practical matter, it would not be appropriate in some circumstances for stakeholders to be privy to Commission-generated information that qualifies as CEII. For example, Commission-generated CEII may contain information that is otherwise non-public or privileged. To the extent that an entity believes that a Commission-generated document contains CEII about its facility, the entity is not precluded from raising that concern with the CEII Coordinator.
62. The NOPR recognized that information submitted to the Commission may contain parts that are CEII and parts that may not be CEII. As a result, the NOPR proposed to require entities submitting CEII and Commission staff who generate CEII, to the extent feasible, to segregate the CEII (or information that reasonably could be expected to lead to the disclosure of the CEII) from non-CEII at the time of submission or staff's generation, respectively.
63. HRC and Powerex support the requirement to segregate CEII from non-CEII and encourage efforts to prevent the over-classification of information.
64. The Commission clarifies that submitting a properly redacted public version of information submitted as CEII meets the requirement established in section 215A(d)(8). Moreover, derivative analyses that use or rely on CEII, without actually containing or disclosing CEII, do not automatically qualify as CEII unless the information provided could reasonably be expected to lead to the disclosure of CEII.
65. Section 215A(d)(9) provides that information “may not be designated as critical electric infrastructure information for longer than 5 years, unless specifically re-designated by the Commission or the Secretary, as appropriate.”
66. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed removing the CEII designation when the information no longer could impair the security or reliability of not only the bulk-power system or distribution facilities but also other forms of energy infrastructure.
67. Several commenters support the proposal to maintain information as non-public after CEII designations marked on the information expire.
68. APS requests clarification on whether the criteria for re-designating CEII are the same as the criteria used for the initial CEII designation.
69. NRECA and ITC assert that the NOPR is unclear with respect to the notice and comment provisions pertaining to a determination to remove CEII designations. In particular, they urge the Commission to clarify that submitters will receive notice, an opportunity to comment, and appeals rights prior to any determination to remove a CEII designation and prior to any disclosure of the information.
70. APPA requests that the Commission revise the language in amended section 388.113(e) to ensure that designations made by DOE cannot be removed by the Commission.
71. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to treat expired CEII as non-public until a re-designation determination is made. Such a process is supported by the majority of commenters and is reasonable given the large volume of CEII presently in the Commission's files and anticipated to be filed. Consistent with the NOPR's intent, the Commission will modify the regulatory language in amended section 388.113(e) to indicate that the Commission will treat information as non-public after the CEII designation has lapsed; that no information will be released as non-CEII unless the Commission decides to release the information; and that notice and opportunity for comment will be provided to the submitter prior to any determination that the CEII designation of a submitted document should be removed.
72. We do not adopt the recommendations to automatically re-designate information, designate by category, or designate for the lifetime of a facility. Blanket designations are inconsistent with FPA section 215A(d)(9), which requires the Commission to specifically re-designate information.
73. In response to ITC's comments that providing notice to the person who submitted the document is insufficient, we clarify that the Commission will provide the person and/or the organization identified on the submission notice an opportunity to comment as well as appeal rights prior to any determination to rescind a CEII designation or release the information.
74. With respect to APPA's comments regarding the Commission's ability to remove a DOE designation, we clarify that the Commission does not intend to remove any designations that DOE may make. With respect to APS's request for clarification regarding re-designations, we clarify that the regulations adopted herein do not differentiate between the processes for designating or re-designating information as CEII.
75. The Commission proposed to require a person seeking to challenge a Commission designation determination to file an administrative appeal with the Commission's General Counsel prior to seeking judicial review in federal district court under section 215A(d)(11).
76. HRC contends that the Commission's administrative appeal requirement should not be mandatory.
77. NRECA contends that the Commission must revise the delegation authority provisions in section 375.313 to allow the General Counsel to hear and decide an administrative appeal.
78. With respect to NRECA and HRC's comment, Congress directed the Commission to establish criteria and procedures to designate information as CEII, and the mandatory appeal to the Commission's General Counsel is a procedure that will assist in proper designation of such information. Requiring a party to exhaust administrative remedies prior to taking a matter to court is a standard and basic function of administrative law.
79. In response to NRECA's suggestion regarding appeal timeframes, the Commission will revise the amended regulations at section 388.113(j) to provide more specificity about the process for submitting an administrative appeal. After receiving a determination that information no longer qualifies as CEII, a submitter may appeal that determination. To make an appeal, the submitter must file a notice of appeal to the General Counsel, copying the CEII Coordinator, within 5 business days of the date of the determination.
80. To avoid any uncertainty, the Commission will amend section 375.309 to include a provision to make clear that the Commission has delegated to the General Counsel authority to make determinations on behalf of the
81. The Commission proposed revisions to strengthen the handling requirements for Commission employees and external recipients of CEII. With respect to Commission staff, the Commission proposed to add section 388.113(h) to require Commissioners, Commission staff, and Commission contractors to comply with the Commission's internal controls.
82. The Trade Associations request that the Commission provide further details of the content and nature of the internal controls and include them in the Commission's regulations.
83. Several commenters request that the Commission expand the list of minimum requirements for a NDA. MISO and NRECA note that the NOPR recognizes the need for requesters to protect CEII after the designation has lapsed and recommend that the duty to protect expired CEII be included in the minimum NDA requirements.
84. In addition to the NDA recommendations stated above, the Trade Associations request that the Commission add the following clauses to the NDA: (1) Recipients of CEII shall have information protection policies and procedures to protect the CEII; and (2) an officer of the recipient's organization, on behalf of the organization, as well as all individuals who will have access to the CEII, shall execute the NDA, which shall specify that the individuals and organization face sanctions for failure to honor the terms of the NDA.
85. APS encourages the Commission to review the current NDA for potential gaps, such as the lack of an obligation to treat CEII with the same degree of care as a requester would treat its own confidential or proprietary information.
86. Peak seeks clarification regarding the requirements for keeping CEII in a secure place and manner.
87. The Trade Associations recommend that the Commission adopt a monitoring and enforcement process to discourage unauthorized disclosures and ask for additional language clarifying that “any person or entity found to have used or disclosed CEII in a manner inconsistent with the NDA will lose its access to CEII for an extended period of time.”
88. NERC requests that the Commission ensure that requesters have not been convicted of criminal activity by performing background checks, reviewing watch lists, and verifying security clearances to prevent inadvertent disclosures of CEII to a person with a criminal record or who is under investigation or on a terrorist watch list.
89. NERC also proposes that the Commission include evidentiary criteria to determine whether a requester of CEII is legitimate, and the Trade Associations ask the Commission to conduct risk assessments on all requesters.
90. APS urges the Commission to require all requests to include at least two business references and the submission of documentation of authority for organizational requesters.
91. We disagree with the Trade Associations' recommendation that we provide additional details regarding internal controls and that we include internal controls in the Commission's regulations. The NOPR stated that the internal controls will address “how sensitive information, including CEII, should be handled, marked, and kept.”
92. Amended section 388.113(h)(2) only includes “minimum” requirements
93. In response to MISO's and NRECA's comments, the Commission will amend section 388.113(h)(2) to require a recipient of CEII under a NDA to protect the CEII after a designation lapses as part of the list of minimum requirements of a NDA. In response to the comments by MISO, the Trade Associations and APS, we will also amend section 388.113(h)(2) to add an obligation to require CEII recipients to promptly report all unauthorized disclosures of CEII to the Commission.
94. In response to NRECA's concern, the Commission clarifies that a requester seeking information past the expiration of the CEII designation marked on the information must still pursue the information through the CEII or FOIA processes. We read NRECA's comments to apply to situations where an entity requests information that has been submitted to the Commission more than five years prior to the request and the Commission has not made a determination to re-designate the information. In these situations, the CEII Coordinator will make a re-designation determination as part of the response to a request seeking access to information that has a designation determination older than five years. If the information is re-designated as CEII, then it will be processed pursuant to the Commission's requirements for CEII.
95. The Commission is not persuaded by Peak's comments that there is a need to clarify what constitutes maintaining CEII in a secure place. We believe that a “secure place,” as articulated in the NDA, has a well-understood meaning,
96. The Commission believes that it has sufficient authority to enforce the terms of the NDA and, as a result, it is unnecessary to confer on NERC or others authority to enforce the terms of a NDA.
97. In response to the comments of the Trade Associations and NRECA, the Commission notes that the FAST Act does not require the Commission to develop sanctions for external recipients of CEII. In any event, the general CEII NDA already states that a violation of the NDA may result in civil sanctions for an external recipient of CEII, and it will continue to do so. It is not necessary to list all the various civil sanctions that may apply, as each matter would be reviewed on its own facts. For these reasons, we also decline to adopt the Trade Associations' recommendation that we add to the minimum requirements of a NDA a provision that CEII recipients may be sanctioned by losing access to CEII for an extended period of time.
98. The Commission agrees that it is important to ensure that requesters of CEII do not pose security risks. CEII requesters have historically fallen into different categories, including individuals known to the Commission with no known risk.
99. Section 215A(d)(2)(C) of the FPA requires the Commission to “ensure there are appropriate sanctions in place for Commissioners, officers, employees, or agents of the Commission or DOE who knowingly and willfully disclose critical electric infrastructure information in a manner that is not authorized under this section.”
100. Several commenters, including APPA and the Trade Associations, point to the absence of stated sanctions for Commissioners in the NOPR and request that the Commission consider whether to impose civil sanctions under section 316A of the FPA and criminal penalties under section 316(b) of the FPA.
101. As discussed below, we conclude that the sanctions adopted in this Final Rule, as well as other reforms adopted prior to the passage of the FAST Act, provide sufficient deterrents to the unauthorized disclosure of CEII.
102. First, we note that, in addition to the changes adopted in this Final Rule, the Commission has recently made a number of changes to its internal procedures to ensure the protection and security of CEII.
103. The Commission has revised its security classification and ethics training to ensure that Commission employees are aware of their responsibility to protect sensitive
104. The Commission has also taken steps to ensure that there are appropriate sanctions in place for certain persons who knowingly and willfully disclose CEII without authorization. With respect to former employees and Commissioners, the Commission has strengthened certain requirements applicable to departing employees and Commissioners by requiring them to certify that they are not unlawfully removing records from the agency. This certification form also identifies and requires a departing employee or Commissioner to acknowledge the potential criminal penalties associated with the unlawful removal or destruction of federal records. While these changes pre-date the passage of the FAST Act, they are an important component of the Commission's ongoing efforts to protect against improper disclosure of CEII.
105. As to existing Commission officers, employees, and agents, we conclude that the sanctions adopted in this Final Rule are appropriate, as they provide for possible dismissal from federal service and criminal prosecution for improper disclosure of CEII. These sanctions should serve as a deterrent to, and punishment for, improper activity.
106. With respect to Commissioners, we believe it is appropriate that violations be referred to the DOE IG, as that office is equipped to investigate a Commissioner's actions and impose sanctions on a Commissioner through an independent process outside of the Commission's enforcement process.
107. Finally we conclude that there is no need to add a mechanism to our regulations for the public to make a referral to the DOE IG, as the DOE IG has an existing hotline in place for the public.
108. Section 215A(d)(2)(D) of the FPA requires the Commission, taking into account standards of the Electric Reliability Organization, to facilitate voluntary sharing of critical electric infrastructure information. The statute, specifically, directs the Commission to facilitate voluntary sharing with, between, and by Federal, State, political subdivision, and tribal authorities; the Electric Reliability Organization; regional entities; information sharing and analysis centers established pursuant to Presidential Decision Directive 63; owners, operators, and users of critical electric infrastructure in the United States; and other entities determined appropriate by the Commission.
109. The Commission proposed that it would voluntarily share Commission-generated CEII and CEII submitted to the Commission with individuals or organizations when there is a need to ensure that energy infrastructure is protected.
110. In the NOPR, the Commission also noted that it retains the discretion to release information as necessary for other federal agencies to carry out their jurisdictional responsibilities.
111. The NOPR also proposed that the Commission may impose additional restrictions on how voluntarily shared CEII may be used and maintained.
112. Several commenters observe that the NOPR only addressed the Commission's voluntary sharing of CEII and did not establish guidelines for the voluntary sharing of CEII “with, between, and by” other entities.
113. The Joint RTOs (ISO New England, Inc. and Southwest Power Pool, Inc.) suggest that the Commission facilitate the sharing of CEII by permitting regional transmission organizations (RTOs), independent system operators (ISOs), and other entities with FERC-approved tariffs or similar agreements to share CEII “between the entities relying on their tariff information-handling commitments.”
114. NERC generally supports the Commission's proposal to facilitate voluntary information sharing with NERC, regional entities and information sharing and analysis centers. NERC, nonetheless, requests that the Commission, under appropriate circumstances, share CEII with the Electricity Information Sharing & Analysis Center (E-ISAC) when voluntarily sharing CEII with a governmental entity.
115. APS, the Trade Associations and CEA ask for additional criteria as to how and when the Commission will voluntarily share information.
116. APPA asserts that FPA 215A(d)(2)(D) directs the Commission only to facilitate voluntary sharing of CEII among electricity subsector stakeholders—not to preemptively share CEII with interested parties.
117. The Trade Associations request that the regulations explicitly state that the voluntary sharing of CEII is limited to instances where the Commission has determined that there is a need to “ensure that energy infrastructure is protected.”
118. CEA requests that the Commission include language clarifying that the Commission will make every reasonable effort to provide advance notice before sharing CEII and will provide after-the-fact notice if prior notice is not practical.
119. The Trade Associations state that the proposed regulations could be strengthened by: (1) Limiting and defining the circumstances where notice would “not be practicable”; and (2) allowing the submitters an opportunity to provide comments protesting the release of information the Commission proposes to voluntarily share.
120. Finally, TAPS requests that the Commission revise its delegations to reflect the NOPR's proposal that Office Directors will engage in voluntary sharing.
121. Many of the commenters misapprehend how CEII may be voluntarily shared under the FAST Act or otherwise seek to expand the Commission's CEII sharing program in ways that neither the FAST Act nor the NOPR contemplated. Under FPA section 215A(a)(3), CEII is limited to information that is submitted to, or generated by, the Commission and designated as such by the Commission (or information submitted to, or generated by DOE, and designated as such by DOE).
122. The Final Rule facilitates voluntary sharing by allowing the public to request CEII and by adding to the Commission's regulations a process whereby staff may share CEII in a proactive manner with a variety of entities. The Commission agrees with PJM's comments that existing non-public voluntary sharing mechanisms within the energy industry are sufficient to encourage sharing information among the different groups and therefore there is no need for the Commission to establish requirements for sharing within the industry through tariff revisions or otherwise.
123. The Commission agrees with NERC and APPA that the plain language of the statute expressly provides for the voluntary sharing of information with entities like E-ISAC and other ISAOs. Section 215A(d)(2)(iv) concerns the voluntary sharing of CEII with, between, and by “information sharing and analysis centers established pursuant to Presidential Decision Directive 63.” Pursuant to that provision, the Commission anticipates voluntary sharing of information with, between and by E-ISAC and other ISAOs under the appropriate circumstances. Under our current NDAs, CEII recipients may share CEII with other individuals covered by a NDA for the same information.
124. The Commission disagrees with APPA that E-ISAC or another ISAO should be designated as a forum to share CEII. The FAST Act does not specify that the Commission should designate E-ISAC, another ISAO, or any other entity as a forum through which CEII can be shared under section 215A. In fact, a plain reading of the statute indicates that Congress designated the Commission as the entity to facilitate this sharing. As such, the Commission declines to take the recommendation of APPA.
125. We disagree with APPA's assertions that the voluntary sharing provision in the Commission's regulations effectively requires entities to share CEII with another entity or the Commission.
126. Even if the Commission's voluntary sharing of information were viewed as the same as a third-party sharing it, the Commission must balance its obligation to disclose information as necessary to carry out its jurisdictional responsibilities against an entity's possible preference not to have such information disclosed.
127. As noted in the NOPR, in some circumstances, providing notice to a submitter of CEII that its information will be shared under section 215A could hamper the ability of the Commission to act in a timely way.
128. The NOPR proposed to require that a consultation between the CEII Coordinator and the appropriate Office Director take place prior to any voluntary sharing of CEII. We disagree with NERC's proposal to add a requirement that staff from the Commission's Office of Electric Reliability (OER) and Office of Energy Infrastructure Security (OEIS) be involved in all voluntary sharing consultations because the information in question may not involve OEIS or OER subject matter. However, we note that the CEII Coordinator will consult with Commission staff as appropriate, which could include OER and OEIS staff. The Commission is also not persuaded that it is necessary to provide additional details regarding the factors the Commission will use to determine when voluntary sharing is appropriate. The NOPR specifically proposed that the Commission will voluntarily share “CEII with individuals and organizations that the Commission has determined need the information to ensure that energy infrastructure is protected.”
129. The Commission disagrees with APPA's suggestion that the regulations should include more developed protections to facilitate information sharing.
130. In response to TAPS's comment, the Commission finds that the CEII Coordinator delegation in section 375.313 is sufficient and does not require separate delegations for Office Directors to voluntarily share CEII. Moreover, existing section 388.113(d)(1) has allowed Commission staff to share Critical Energy Infrastructure Information with facility owners and operators. No such delegated authority has been used for such sharing.
131. The Commission proposed to maintain special access procedures for owner-operators of facilities, federal agencies, and intervening parties.
132. APPA recommends that the Commission adopt a tiered system with varying levels of access restrictions.
133. The Trade Associations recommend that if an academic institution or other members of the public request CEII, the Commission should deny the request and refer the request to the information owner.
134. Peak recommends that the Commission's sharing of CEII with owners and operators should not be limited to information related to “its own facility.”
135. Public Interest Organizations support the NOPR's proposed revisions allowing certain LNG materials to be accessible in proceedings in which there is a right to intervention.
136. MISO notes that for purposes of consistency, the Commission should add language already in section 388.112(b)(iv) to amended section 388.113(g)(4) to ensure that, if an objection to a request for disclosure is filed, whether the information is privileged or CEII, “the filer shall not provide the non-public document to the person or class of persons identified in the objection until ordered by the Commission or a decisional authority.”
137. Peak asks the Commission to clarify whether the protections proposed in section 388.113(g)(2) regarding the obligation of federal agency recipients to protect CEII in the same manner as the Commission extends to data generated by a federal agency through an analysis of CEII.
138. APS requests that the Commission revise amended section 388.113(g)(5)(vi) to require organizational requesters to promptly update/remove individuals from their list of approved individuals.
139. The Trade Associations and APS state that they are concerned that amended section 388.113(g)(5)(v), which allows an individual under an organizational request to have access to CEII for the remainder of a calendar year, may result in a less robust verification system.
140. INGAA asks for acknowledgment that the Commission approves of entities providing requested information directly to CEII requesters.
141. Public Interest Organizations ask the Commission to establish a reasonable timeline for the review of and response to CEII requests.
142. NERC requests that the appeal rights available to requesters be made available to submitting entities to avoid disclosures that might place CEII at risk.
143. APPA and the Trade Associations have not demonstrated a need for the Commission to change its practices and use a tiered system of categories of CEII or a heightened “need to know” standard for bulk-power system information. The Commission will continue to “balance the requestor's need for the information against the sensitivity of the information.”
144. As noted above, the FAST Act does not require changes to the Commission's existing process for accessing information. The CEII Coordinator will continue to evaluate each request individually. In response to Peak's comments, the Commission notes that the current procedures allow academics to obtain CEII, and that the Commission does, as appropriate in individual rulemakings, consider whether certain categories of information should generally be made available for research.
145. The Commission also disagrees with deleting the term “other reasons” from proposed section 388.113(g)(5)(iv) as there may be other legitimate reasons why the Commission would not permit access to certain CEII in particular situations.
146. The Commission is not persuaded that it needs to adopt Peak's proposed changes to the owner-operator provision. An owner-operator has a need to obtain CEII about its own facility. To the extent the owner-operator needs other CEII, it can pursue additional information through the regular CEII request process.
147. As to the comment by Public Interest Organizations, the Final Rule maintains the mechanism for interveners to request CEII outside of the CEII process.
148. The Commission agrees with MISO's change to proposed section 388.113(g)(4), and amends that provision to include all of the language that currently exists in section 388.112(b)(2)(iv) to ensure that if an objection to the disclosure of CEII is filed, the information will not be disclosed until directed by the Commission or a decisional authority.
149. In response to Peak's comments, the Commission clarifies that a federal agency in receipt of CEII from the Commission must protect that information in the same manner as the Commission. That agency will be required to execute an appropriate Agency Acknowledgment and Agreement. We clarify that derivative analyses that use or rely on CEII, without actually disclosing CEII, do not automatically qualify as CEII unless the information provided could reasonably be expected to lead to the disclosure of CEII.
150. Recognizing that the employment status and circumstances surrounding an individual or organization can change, in response to APS's comment, the Commission will modify the NDAs to indicate that a recipient of CEII must promptly notify the Commission if any changed conditions, such as a change in employment, occur.
151. Amended section 388.113(g)(5)(v) recognizes that in some instances a requester may request CEII multiple times during a calendar year. In response to comments by APS and Trade Associations regarding the robustness of the requester verifications, the Commission clarifies that each request will be reviewed by balancing the needs of the requester against the sensitivity of the requested information.
152. In response to INGAA's request, the Commission notes that under the current CEII rules, entities may share information that they submitted to the Commission with a request for CEII treatment (as opposed to CEII that they received from the Commission) directly with other entities, and the Commission will continue to encourage and support such a practice. The Commission adopts INGAA's recommendation that “information about rare species of plants and animals” be added to the section 388.113(g)(5)(ix) list of items that are not required to be released when the information is inextricably intertwined with CEII.
153. In response to comments by Public Interest Organizations, the Commission is not persuaded that additional clarifications regarding timing are necessary. Section 388.113(g)(5)(vii) of the amended regulations indicates that the time period for responding to CEII requests should mirror the period for responding to FOIA requests. In response to APS's suggestion of a default time period for the Commission to respond to a request for CEII unless the information is needed sooner, expedited treatment is not needed, as a requester may include a timeframe in which it needs the information, and the Commission will endeavor to respond in that period. The Commission believes that NERC's recommendation to place language concerning tolling in the CEII regulation is not necessary, as the time requirement for responses to requesters is not binding and the Commission's practice is to always toll the response period when further information is needed.
154. In response to NERC's comment regarding appeal rights, the Commission notes that the existing CEII appeals process, which provides appeal rights to the requester, has been effective and there is no compelling need to extend a right to appeal to anyone other than the individual requester. If a submitter believes that its objection to disclosure of its CEII under a NDA has not been fully addressed, the submitter may raise that issue in district court.
155. In response to TAPS's comment, the Commission clarifies that appeal rights apply when it imposes any conditions on receipt of CEII.
156. The Paperwork Reduction Act and Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) implementing regulations require OMB to review and approve certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule.
157. 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.
158. The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this requirement as not having a significant effect on the human environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural, or that do not substantially change the effect of the regulations being amended.
159. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) requires rulemakings to contain either a description and analysis of the effect that the rule will have on small entities or a certification that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
160. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
161. 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.
162. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
163. These regulations are effective February 21, 2017. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. The Commission will submit the Final Rule to both houses of Congress and to the General Accountability Office.
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Seals and insignia, Sunshine Act.
Confidential business information, Freedom of information.
By the Commission.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Parts 375 and 388, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 16 U.S.C. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
(h) Deny or grant, in whole or in part, an appeal of a determination by the CEII Coordinator.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) Receive and review all requests for CEII as defined in § 388.113(c) of this chapter.
(b) Make determinations as to whether particular information fits within the definition of CEII found at § 388.113(c) of this chapter, including designating information, as appropriate.
(c) Make determinations that information designated as CEII should no longer be so designated when the unauthorized disclosure of the information could no longer be used to impair the security or reliability of the bulk-power system or distribution facilities or any other form of energy infrastructure.
(d) Make determinations as to whether a particular requester's need for and ability and willingness to protect CEII warrants limited disclosure of the information to the requester.
(e) Establish reasonable conditions on the release of CEII.
(f) Release CEII to requesters who satisfy the requirements in paragraph (d) of this section and agree in writing to abide by any conditions set forth by the Coordinator pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section.
5 U.S.C. 301-305, 551, 552 (as amended), 553-557; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 16 U.S.C. 824(o-l).
(a)
(b)
(2) * * *
(i) If a person files material as privileged material in a complaint proceeding or other proceeding to which a right to intervention exists, that person must include a proposed form of protective agreement with the filing, or identify a protective agreement that has already been filed in the proceeding that applies to the filed material. This requirement does not apply to material submitted in hearing or settlement proceedings, or if the only material for which privileged treatment is claimed consists of landowner lists or privileged information filed under §§ 380.12(f) and 380.16(f) of this chapter.
(vi) For landowner lists, information filed as privileged under §§ 380.12(f) and 380.16(f) of this chapter, forms filed with the Commission, and other documents not covered above, access to this material can be sought pursuant to a FOIA request under § 388.108. Applicants are not required under paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section to provide intervenors with landowner lists and the other materials identified in the previous sentence.
(c) * * * (1) For documents filed with the Commission:
(i) The documents for which privileged treatment is claimed will be maintained in the Commission's document repositories as non-public until such time as the Commission may determine that the document is not entitled to the treatment sought and is subject to disclosure consistent with § 388.108. By treating the documents as nonpublic, the Commission is not making a determination on any claim of privilege status. The Commission retains the right to make determinations with regard to any claim of privilege status, and the discretion to release information as necessary to carry out its jurisdictional responsibilities.
(ii) The request for privileged treatment and the public version of the document will be made available while the request is pending.
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(i) Relates details about the production, generation, transportation, transmission, or distribution of energy;
(ii) Could be useful to a person in planning an attack on critical infrastructure;
(iii) Is exempt from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552; and
(iv) Does not simply give the general location of the critical infrastructure.
(3)
(4)
(d)
(1) For information submitted to the Commission:
(i) A person requesting that information submitted to the Commission be treated as CEII must include with its submission a justification for such treatment in accordance with the filing procedures posted on the Commission's Web site at
(ii) In addition to the justification required by paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, a person requesting that information submitted to the Commission be treated as CEII must clearly label the cover page and pages or portions of the information for which CEII treatment is claimed in bold, capital lettering, indicating that it contains CEII, as appropriate, and marked “DO NOT RELEASE.” The submitter must also segregate those portions of the information that contain
(iii) If a person files material as CEII in a complaint proceeding or other proceeding to which a right to intervention exists, that person must include a proposed form of protective agreement with the filing, or identify a protective agreement that has already been filed in the proceeding that applies to the filed material.
(iv) The information for which CEII treatment is claimed will be maintained in the Commission's files as non-public until such time as the Commission may determine that the information is not entitled to the treatment sought. By treating the information as CEII, the Commission is not making a determination on any claim of CEII status. The Commission retains the right to make determinations with regard to any claim of CEII status at any time, and the discretion to release information as necessary to carry out its jurisdictional responsibilities. Although unmarked information may be eligible for CEII treatment, the Commission will treat unmarked information as CEII only if it is properly designated as CEII pursuant to Commission regulations.
(v) The CEII Coordinator will evaluate whether the submitted information or portions of the information are covered by the definitions in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section prior to making a designation as CEII.
(vi) Subject to the exceptions set forth in paragraph (f)(5) of this section, when a CEII requester seeks information for which CEII status has been claimed, or when the Commission itself is considering release of such information, the CEII Coordinator or any other appropriate Commission official will notify the person who submitted the information and give the person an opportunity (at least five business days) in which to comment in writing on the request. A copy of this notice will be sent to the requester. Notice of a decision by the Commission, or the CEII Coordinator to make a release of CEII, will be given to any person claiming that the information is CEII no less than five business days before disclosure. The notice will respond to any objections to disclosure from the submitter that are not sustained. Where applicable, a copy of this notice will be sent to the CEII requester.
(2) For Commission-generated information:
(i) After consultation with the Office Director for the office that created the information, or the Office Director's designee, the CEII Coordinator will designate Commission-generated information as CEII after determining that the information or portions of the information are covered by the definitions in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. Commission-generated CEII shall include clear markings to indicate the information is CEII and the date of the designation.
(ii) The Commission will segregate non-CEII from Commission-generated CEII or information that reasonably could be expected to lead to the disclosure of CEII wherever feasible.
(e)
(1) A designation may last for up to a five-year period, unless re-designated. In making a determination as to whether the designation should be extended, the CEII Coordinator will take into account information provided in response to paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, and any other information, as appropriate.
(2) A designation may be removed at any time, in whole or in part, if the Commission determines that the unauthorized disclosure of CEII could no longer be used to impair the security or reliability of the bulk-power system or distribution facilities or any other form of energy infrastructure.
(3) The Commission will treat CEII or documents marked as CEII as non-public after the designation has lapsed until the CEII Coordinator determines to un-designate the information.
(4) If a CEII designation is removed, the submitter will receive notice and an opportunity to comment. The CEII Coordinator will notify the submitter of the information and give the submitter an opportunity (at least five business days) in which to comment in writing prior to the removal of the designation. Notice of a removal decision will be given to any submitter claiming that the information is CEII no less than five business days before disclosure. The notice will briefly explain why the submitter's objections to the removal of the designation are not sustained by the Commission
(f)
(1) The Director of any Office of the Commission or his designee that wishes to voluntarily share CEII shall consult with the CEII Coordinator prior to the Office Director or his designee making a determination on whether to voluntarily share the CEII.
(2) Consistent with paragraph (d) of this section, the Commission retains the discretion to release information as necessary to carry out its jurisdictional responsibilities in facilitating voluntary sharing or, in the case of information provided to other federal agencies, the Commission retains the discretion to release information as necessary for those agencies to carry out their jurisdictional responsibilities.
(3) All entities receiving CEII must execute either a non-disclosure agreement or an acknowledgement and agreement. A copy of each agreement will be maintained by the Office Director with a copy to the CEII Coordinator.
(4) When the Commission voluntarily shares CEII pursuant to this subsection, the Commission may impose additional restrictions on how the information may be used and maintained.
(5) Submitters of CEII shall receive notification of a limited release of CEII no less than five business days before disclosure, except in instances where voluntary sharing is necessary for law enforcement purposes, to maintain infrastructure security, to address potential threats, when notice would not be practicable, and where there is an urgent need to quickly disseminate the information. When prior notice is not given, the Commission will provide submitters of CEII notice of a limited release of the CEII as soon as practicable.
(g)
(2) An employee of a federal agency acting within the scope of his or her federal employment may obtain CEII directly from Commission staff without following the procedures outlined in paragraph (g)(5) of this section. Any Commission employee at or above the level of division director or its equivalent may rule on requests for access to CEII by a representative of a federal agency. To obtain access to CEII, an agency employee must sign an acknowledgement and agreement, which states that the agency will protect the CEII in the same manner as the Commission and will refer any requests for the information to the Commission. Notice of each such request also must be given to the CEII Coordinator, who shall track this information.
(3) A landowner whose property is crossed by or in the vicinity of a project may receive detailed alignment sheets containing CEII directly from Commission staff without submitting a non-disclosure agreement as outlined in paragraph (g)(5) of this section. A landowner must provide Commission staff with proof of his or her property interest in the vicinity of a project.
(4) Any person who is a participant in a proceeding or has filed a motion to intervene or notice of intervention in a proceeding may make a written request to the filer for a copy of the complete CEII version of the document without following the procedures outlined in paragraph (g)(5) of this section. The request must include an executed copy of the applicable protective agreement and a statement of the person's right to party or participant status or a copy of the person's motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person may file an objection to the proposed form of protective agreement. A filer, or any other person, may file an objection to disclosure, generally or to a particular person or persons who have sought intervention. If no objection to disclosure is filed, the filer must provide a copy of the complete, non-public document to the requesting person within five business days after receipt of the written request that is accompanied by an executed copy of the protective agreement. If an objection to disclosure is filed, the filer shall not provide the non-public document to the person or class of persons identified in the objection until ordered by the Commission or a decisional authority.
(5) If any requester not described above in paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this section has a particular need for information designated as CEII, the requester may request the information using the following procedures:
(i) File a signed, written request with the Commission's CEII Coordinator. The request must contain the following:
(A) Requester's name (including any other name(s) which the requester has used and the dates the requester used such name(s)), title, address, and telephone number; and the name, address, and telephone number of the person or entity on whose behalf the information is requested;
(B) A detailed Statement of Need, which must state: The extent to which a particular function is dependent upon access to the information; why the function cannot be achieved or performed without access to the information; an explanation of whether other information is available to the requester that could facilitate the same objective; how long the information will be needed; whether or not the information is needed to participate in a specific proceeding (with that proceeding identified); and an explanation of whether the information is needed expeditiously.
(C) An executed non-disclosure agreement as described in paragraph (h)(2) of this section;
(D) A signed statement attesting to the accuracy of the information provided in the request; and
(E) A requester shall provide his or her date and place of birth upon request, if it is determined by the CEII Coordinator that this information is necessary to process the request.
(ii) A requester who seeks the information on behalf of all employees of an organization should clearly state that the information is sought for the organization, that the requester is authorized to seek the information on behalf of the organization, and that all individuals in the organization that have access to the CEII will agree to be bound by a non-disclosure agreement that must be executed.
(iii) After the request is received, the CEII Coordinator will determine if the information is CEII, and, if it is, whether to release the CEII to the requester. The CEII Coordinator will balance the requester's need for the information against the sensitivity of the information. If the requester is determined to be eligible to receive the information requested, the CEII Coordinator will determine what conditions, if any, to place on release of the information.
(iv) If the CEII Coordinator determines that the CEII requester has not demonstrated a valid or legitimate need for the CEII or that access to the CEII should be denied for other reasons, this determination may be appealed to the General Counsel pursuant to § 388.110. The General Counsel will decide whether the information is properly classified as CEII, which by definition is exempt from release under FOIA, and whether the Commission should in its discretion make such CEII available to the CEII requester in view of the requester's asserted legitimacy and need.
(v) Once a CEII requester has been verified by Commission staff as a legitimate requester who does not pose a security risk, his or her verification will be valid for the remainder of that calendar year. Such a requester is not required to provide detailed information about himself or herself with subsequent requests during the calendar year. He or she is also not required to file a non-disclosure agreement with subsequent requests during the calendar year because the original non-disclosure agreement will apply to all subsequent releases of CEII.
(vi) An organization that is granted access to CEII pursuant to paragraph (g)(5)(ii) of this section may seek to add additional individuals to the non-disclosure agreement within one (1) year of the date of the initial CEII request. Such an organization must provide the names of the added individuals to the CEII Coordinator and certify that notice of each added individual has been given to the submitter. Any newly added individuals must execute a supplement to the original non-disclosure agreement indicating their acceptance of its terms. If there is no written opposition within five business days of notifying the CEII Coordinator and the submitter concerning the addition of any newly added individuals, the CEII Coordinator will issue a standard notice accepting the addition of these names to the non-disclosure agreement. If the submitter files a timely opposition with the CEII Coordinator, the CEII Coordinator will issue a formal determination addressing the merits of such opposition. If an organization that is granted access to CEII pursuant to paragraph (g)(5)(ii) of this section wants to add new individuals to its non-disclosure agreement more than one year after the date of its initial CEII request, the organization must submit a new CEII request pursuant to paragraph (g)(5)(ii) of this section and a new non-disclosure agreement for each new individual added.
(vii) The CEII Coordinator will attempt to respond to the requester under this section according to the timing required for responses under the FOIA in § 388.108(c).
(viii) Fees for processing CEII requests will be determined in accordance with § 388.109.
(ix) Nothing in this section should be construed as requiring the release of proprietary information, personally identifiable information, cultural resource information, information on rare species of plants and animals, and other comparable data protected by statute or any privileged information, including information protected by the deliberative process privilege.
(h)
(1) To ensure that the Commissioners, Commission employees, and Commission contractors protect CEII from unauthorized disclosure, internal controls will describe the handling, marking, and security controls for CEII.
(2) Any individual who requests information pursuant to paragraph (g)(5) of this section must sign and execute a non-disclosure agreement, which indicates the individual's willingness to adhere to limitations on the use and disclosure of the information requested. The non-disclosure agreement will, at a minimum, require the following: CEII will only be used for the purpose for which it was requested; CEII may only be discussed with authorized recipients; CEII must be kept in a secure place in a manner that would prevent unauthorized access; CEII must be destroyed or returned to the Commission upon request; the Commission may audit the recipient's compliance with the non-disclosure agreement; CEII provided pursuant to the agreement is not subject to release under either FOIA or Sunshine Laws; a recipient is obligated to protect the CEII even after a designation has lapsed until the CEII Coordinator determines the information should no longer be designated as CEII under paragraph (e)(2) of this section; and a recipient is required to promptly report all unauthorized disclosures of CEII to the Commission.
(i)
(j)
(2) Individuals who receive a determination denying a request for the release of CEII, in whole or in part, or a determination denying a request to change the designation of CEII may appeal such determinations. Such appeals must be submitted to the General Counsel within 20 business days of the date of the determination.
(3) The Commission's General Counsel or the General Counsel's designee will make a determination with respect to any appeal within 20 business days after the receipt of the appeal. If, on appeal, the General Counsel or the General Counsel's designee upholds the determination in whole or in part, then the General Counsel or the General Counsel's designee will notify the person submitting the appeal of the availability of judicial review.
(4) The time limits prescribed for the General Counsel or his designee to act on an appeal may be extended pursuant to § 388.110(b)(1).
(5) Prior to seeking judicial review in federal district court pursuant to section 215A(d)(11) of the Federal Power Act, a person who received a determination from the Commission concerning a CEII designation must first appeal the determination to the Commission's General Counsel.
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Departmental Offices, Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) is issuing this final rule as part of its implementation of changes to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program (TRIP or Program) required by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015 (2015 Reauthorization Act), as published in proposed form on April 1, 2016, for public comment. Treasury previously issued an interim final rule addressing the process for certification of an act of terrorism, as published in proposed form on April 1, 2016. This final rule addresses the balance of the other proposed rules published on April 1, 2016, and adopts the general renumbering of sections as proposed on April 1, 2016. Some clarifying changes have been made in this final rule in response to comments, and certain other wording changes have also been added which do not change the meaning of the rule as originally proposed.
This rule is effective January 17, 2017.
Richard Ifft, Senior Insurance Regulatory Policy Analyst, Federal Insurance Office, 202-622-2922 (not a toll free number) or Kevin Meehan, Senior Insurance Regulatory Policy Analyst, Federal Insurance Office, 202-622-7009 (not a toll free number).
The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (the Act or TRIA)
The Program has been reauthorized three times.
To date, rules establishing general provisions implementing the Program, including key definitions, and requirements for policy disclosures and mandatory availability, are found in Subparts A, B, and C of 31 CFR part 50.
The proposed rule on which this final rule is based was published in the
Treasury is issuing this final rule after careful consideration of all comments received on the proposed rule. While this final rule largely reflects the proposed rule, Treasury has made several revisions based on the comments received.
Seventeen commenters submitted comments in response to the general proposal relating to 31 CFR part 50.
The proposed changes to Subpart A principally addressed changes to definitional provisions, many of which were required by the 2015 Reauthorization Act, or which were otherwise required by the passage of time or to provide greater clarity to existing provisions. Treasury did not receive comments respecting many of these proposed changes, which are adopted as originally proposed. Treasury received comments concerning four of the definitions within Subpart A: (1) The proposed change to the definition of “affiliate” in § 50.4(c)(2), as it relates to the rule of construction in Section 106 of the 2015 Reauthorization Act, which provides that control for purposes of determining if an insurer is an “affiliate” under TRIA is not established solely because an entity acts as an attorney-in-fact for another entity that is a reciprocal insurer; (2) the proposed change in § 50.4(g) defining “captive insurer” for purposes of implementing TRIA, and the related exclusion of captive insurers from the definition of “small insurer” in proposed § 50.4(z); (3) the proposed change in § 50.4(m) as it relates to the manner in which Treasury proposes to determine the insurance marketplace aggregate retention amount for any calendar year beginning with 2020, in accordance with the requirement in Section 104 of the 2015 Reauthorization Act to issue rules for determining this amount; and (4) the definition proposed in § 50.4(z) of “small insurer” as required under Section 112 of the 2015 Reauthorization Act for purposes of conducting a study of small insurers participating in the Program, and as it might relate to the scope of data to be collected from such entities.
One comment was received concerning the proposed revision to the “affiliate” definition, which suggested that the proposed language would nonetheless permit the Secretary to find control by an entity based solely upon its attorney-in fact relationship with a reciprocal insurer, contrary to the intention of the rule of construction contained in Section 106 of TRIA.
The comments received concerning the definition of captive insurer in proposed § 50.4(g) (which simply references how captives are identified by relevant state law) were principally based upon reference to the term in proposed § 50.4(z), which excludes captive insurers from the definition of “small insurer” regardless of their size. Most comments questioned the basis for excluding all captives from the “small insurer” definition, regardless of the size of the captive insurer or its sponsoring parent organization. Other comments suggested that exclusion of captive insurers from the definition of small insurers should not be made before further evaluation of the issue.
The “small insurer” definition has only two consequences under the proposed Program rules: (1) It will define those insurers that will be considered in the studies Treasury shall conduct and resulting reports it will prepare pursuant to the 2015 Reauthorization Act;
Regarding the first point, the principal purpose of the “small insurer” studies and reports mandated by the 2015 Reauthorization Act is “to identify any competitive challenges small insurers face in the terrorism risk insurance marketplace,” based upon a number of identified factors, including changes in market share, premium volume, and policyholder surplus vis-à-vis large insurers, and the impact on such insurers of the mandatory availability requirement.
As Treasury has recently observed, “captive insurers may issue policies for terrorism risk subject to the Program that provide coverage that might not be readily available otherwise, such as for NBCR [nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological] risks, or for `trophy' properties.”
The potential exposure associated with terrorism risk insurance written by captive insurers for parent or other affiliated entities differs from that of conventional commercial insurers that must “make available” terrorism risk insurance coverage to all potential, unrelated policyholders in the TRIP-eligible lines of insurance. For captive insurers, the offer and acceptance of terrorism risk insurance under the Program is essentially controlled by the insured.
Although captive insurers are mandatory participants in the Program, and may be an important resource in the terrorism risk insurance marketplace, the potentially unique issues such captives face are not on account of “competitive challenges” vis-à-vis other insurers as contemplated by the 2015 Reauthorization Act, and accordingly they do not present the concerns (regardless of their size) that led to the requirement for the study in question. For these reasons, the “small insurer” studies should not and will not address captive insurers, regardless of their size. Treasury has reserved Subpart E of the Program rules to address captive insurers and other self-insurance mechanisms, and development of these regulations in the future will allow Treasury to address any issues particular to captive insurers that might justify individualized treatment under the Program rules.
The other concern identified in the comments—that captive insurers will not be excused from annual data calls (or potentially subject to different data calls) under proposed § 50.51(e)—should be obviated by other changes to the proposed rules that have been made in connection with the final rules as adopted. Based upon Treasury's experience with its recent collection of data on a voluntary basis, a request that may make sense in connection with one type of insurer may be unnecessary or overly burdensome when directed to another. Treasury accordingly has modified § 50.51 as adopted in final form to contain a provision confirming that Treasury may modify data requests by type of insurer to which the requests are directed. Treasury intends to develop data requests for participating captive insurers that will be tailored to the manner in which these entities participate in the Program, which will allow such insurers to provide necessary information in an efficient fashion.
Accordingly, the fact that the definition of “small insurers” excludes captive insurers does not have any significant consequences for captive insurers, and Treasury will adopt § 50.4(g) and § 50.5(z) as originally proposed.
Treasury received two comments concerning proposed § 50.4(m), which addressed, as required by the 2015 Reauthorization, the manner of calculation and publication of the insurance marketplace aggregate retention amount beginning in calendar year 2020.
Treasury will issue § 50.4(m) as originally proposed at this time. Given the deadline for the issuance of this rule, no data that will be used to calculate the insurance marketplace aggregate retention amount for 2020 will be collected before the rule must be issued,
Treasury received very few comments concerning the proposed definition of “small insurer” proposed in § 50.4(z), aside from the exclusion of captive insurers from the definition, which is addressed above. One comment offered “no view” as to whether the proposed definition “is suitable for Treasury's purposes,” but identified a number of factors for consideration in identifying a small insurer, principally relating to
Treasury will issue § 50.4(z) as originally proposed, with the clarifying modification that “policyholder surplus” will be evaluated as it is reported by a participating insurer for state regulatory purposes on its Annual Statement at Page 3, Line 37, Column 1.
Treasury also received comments concerning two provisions within proposed Subpart A to which Treasury did not propose any modifications. The first of these is with respect to proposed § 50.1(c), which one commenter suggested should be modified to confirm that the Program rules also apply to claimants against participating insurers and their policyholders, given that certain provisions of TRIA and the implementing regulations (for example, matters concerning Subpart K, the Federal Cause of Action, and Subpart L, the Cap on Annual Liability) also have an impact upon such claimants.
The second comment referred to proposed § 50.5, the Rule of Construction for Dates, which provides that “any date in these regulations is intended to be applied so that the day begins at 12:01 a.m. and ends at midnight on that date.” Two commenters have observed that this language presents a potential and unintended gap of 59 seconds, if “midnight” means 12:00:00 a.m., and not 12:00:59 a.m.
Treasury did not receive comments respecting the remaining proposed changes to Subpart A. Treasury therefore adopts as the final rule Subpart A as it was proposed, subject to the modifications identified above.
Subpart B addressed the TRIA disclosure requirements, which must be satisfied in order for a participating insurer to qualify for Federal payments. Treasury proposed a clarifying change to § 50.12(b), addressing the manner in which the portion or percentage of the premium attributable to terrorism risk insurance should be disclosed to policyholders or potential policyholders, and also proposed changes to the existing rules to implement changes to the disclosure requirements contained in the 2015 Reauthorization Act. Treasury received comments concerning both of these changes, as well as other suggestions concerning the provisions of Subpart B.
The clarifying change to § 50.12(b) proposed to add the phrase “and provided that the amount of annual premium or the method of determining the annual premium is also stated.” The intent behind the change, as explained in the proposal, was “to ensure that the actual dollar value of the premium is evident.”
It appears from the comments that the principal concern is that while the rule originally stated that an insurer “
Treasury's intention remains to ensure that the actual dollar value of the premium is evident from the disclosure. As stated in the rule, there may be a number of ways for an insurer to accomplish this disclosure, and Treasury is not requiring by rule any
Treasury received an additional comment concerning portions of proposed § 50.12 that Treasury did not propose to modify from the prior version.
Treasury declines to make the suggested change. The comment would eliminate the language in proposed § 50.12(d) (which has previously been in the existing rule) that “[i]f an insurer elects to make the disclosures through an insurance producer or other intermediary, the insurer remains responsible for ensuring that the disclosures are provided by the insurance producer or other intermediary to policyholders in accordance with the Act.” This language is consistent with industry practice generally—
When coupled with existing § 50.12(e), an insurer may demonstrate compliance with disclosure requirements “through use of appropriate systems and normal business practices that demonstrate a practice of compliance,” and this would extend to the use of such systems and normal business practices by an intermediary on behalf of a participating insurer. However, it is the participating insurer that will remain responsible for demonstrating, if an issue of compliance is raised, that appropriate systems and normal business practices were employed by the intermediary on behalf of the insurer. The use of an intermediary, in and of itself, does not demonstrate compliance, or otherwise excuse an insurer from demonstrating compliance. Treasury will adopt as the final rule § 50.12(d) and § 50.12(e) as originally proposed.
Treasury made a number of changes to Subpart B to implement provisions of the 2015 Reauthorization Act which modified the timing of the general disclosure requirements. In the 2015 Reauthorization Act, however, no change was made to the timing of the disclosure requirements applicable to the cap disclosure. A number of commenters have suggested that this was an unintentional oversight on the part of Congress, and that Treasury should implement similar revisions to its rules respecting the cap disclosure.
Treasury understands the position of the commenters. However, while it is possible that the different treatment in the 2015 Reauthorization Act of the various requirements respecting disclosure is the result of an oversight, it is equally possible that the differing treatment reflects a conscious determination that a different approach be taken. See,
Treasury adopts as the final rule Subpart B as it was proposed, subject to the modifications identified above.
The proposed changes to Subpart C involved changes seeking to delete provisions that are redundant or unnecessary on account of the passage of time, substitute language to clarify Treasury's intent, or implement other minor changes that conform the existing regulations to the requirements of the 2015 Reauthorization Act. No comments were received concerning these proposed changes.
Treasury adopts as the final rule Subpart C as it was proposed.
No substantive changes were proposed by Treasury to Subpart D, nor did Treasury receive any comments concerning this Subpart.
Treasury adopts as the final rule Subpart D as it was proposed.
Treasury continues to reserve Subpart E for future additional rules addressing the participation in TRIP of self-insurance arrangements and captive insurers.
Subpart F is new; the proposed rules establish procedures for collection of data as mandated by Section 111 of the 2015 Reauthorization Act, and also address the collection of data by Treasury in other contexts, including in the event that an act of terrorism has
Proposed § 50.50 states that Treasury may generally request information from insurers in connection with the Program, as part of its administration and implementation of the program. This provision is not related specifically to any of the authorities provided under Section 111 of the 2015 Reauthorization Act, and, if exercised, would be based upon Treasury's general authority to seek information in support of the operation of programs that it administers.
Treasury only received one comment specifically directed to proposed § 50.50, and it appears that this comment actually meant to address proposed § 50.51, as the comment actually addresses the annual data collection in aid of Treasury's reporting requirements.
Proposed § 50.51 establishes rules concerning the annual collection of data by Treasury from participating insurers concerning the effectiveness of the Program, as mandated by Section 111 of the 2015 Reauthorization Act. The comments concerning proposed § 50.51 fall into four general categories: (1) Comments suggesting that provisions should be included memorializing that Treasury should collect data from other sources, if available, in lieu of any annual data collection by Treasury directly from participating insurers;
Under the 2015 Reauthorization Act, the Secretary “shall” collect data from participating insurers annually “regarding insurance coverage for terrorism losses of such insurers as the Secretary considers appropriate to analyze the effectiveness of the Program.”
In advance of the recent voluntary data collection, Treasury did coordinate with other sources, including state insurance regulatory authorities, and determined that the data it sought was not available from other sources.
In terms of the timing of annual data collections from participating insurers, Treasury proposed a March 1 deadline because it is consistent with the date of other industry reporting requirements, and it would provide Treasury with the data in sufficient time to complete required reports.
Treasury does not wish to pose any unnecessary burdens upon participating insurers on account of required data collection. It will accordingly modify the data collection response date from March 1 to May 15, which will provide participating insurers the additional time sought but should still provide Treasury with sufficient time to analyze the data for the required reports.
Regarding the nature and scope of the annual data collection, future data collections will be based upon proposed collection templates which will be published for comment in the calendar year prior to the actual collection of
Finally, a number of comments were received that suggested that annual data collection requests should be adjusted depending upon the nature of the reporting insurer's participation in the Program. The rule as originally proposed recognized this to some extent, in the provision suggesting that “small insurers,” as otherwise defined, might be exempted from annual data collection, or subject to modified requests. Based upon Treasury's experience in the recent collection of data, however, it is also the case that modified requests may be used to provide a more efficient collection mechanism for different types of participants in the terrorism risk insurance marketplace, such as captive insurers and alien surplus lines insurers. Accordingly, Treasury will modify subsection (c) of proposed § 50.51 to confirm that the forms for data collection may vary depending upon the type of insurer participating in the Program. As noted above, these proposed forms will be published in advance of their approval and use, such that interested parties are in a position to comment upon the information requested.
Treasury will accordingly adopt as the final rule § 50.51 as originally proposed, subject to the modifications addressed above.
Proposed § 50.52 addresses the collection of data relating to small insurers, as defined in proposed § 50.4(z), in support of the studies of small insurers mandated by the 2015 Reauthorization Act. The data elements specified in proposed § 50.52 are those specified in Section 112 of the 2015 Reauthorization Act. Apart from the comments concerning whether captive insurers should be considered “small insurers” for these purposes, addressed above, Treasury did not receive any comments concerning proposed § 50.52. Treasury accordingly adopts as the final rule § 50.52 as originally proposed.
Proposed § 50.53 establishes rules for the collection of data by Treasury once an act has been certified as an act of terrorism. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, Treasury proposed this provision, which accelerates the time that participating insurers would otherwise be required to report claims to Treasury, because in the absence of such information Treasury could be unaware that the Program Trigger threshold has been breached, which would thus delay its response to legitimate claims for payment of the Federal share of compensation.
Having this requirement in the rules serves an important purpose—to alert Treasury to the need to make payments to an insurer that has satisfied its deductible, but as to which it is unclear, based upon that particular insurer's experience alone, that the Program Trigger has been met. While the proposed rule may not provide any particular benefit to a large insurer, whose claims may alone demonstrate that the Program Trigger has been reached, it could be critical to a smaller insurer that cannot make this demonstration on its own, when other insurers have not met the current 50 percent threshold for reporting claim information and have no reporting obligation. Treasury interprets both comments as implying that the monthly reporting requirement would pose an increased burden on insurers. Treasury believes that the information that will be required from an insurer under this provision will be generated by the insurer in the ordinary course of its business. As a result, Treasury does not believe that this provision imposes a significant additional burden on a participating insurer, any more than an insurer would be burdened if it received such a request from its reinsurer.
Under these circumstances, Treasury believes that the proposed rule serves an important purpose, and provides an important safeguard to insurers that may be most at risk when faced with a disproportionate number of terrorism risk claims. Accordingly, Treasury will adopt as the final rule § 50.53 as proposed.
Finally, proposed § 50.54 implements the requirements found in Section 111 of the 2015 Reauthorization Act, which recognize that the data Treasury will need to collect from participating insurers may constitute proprietary information that is highly sensitive to the individual companies (and, potentially, underlying policyholders and claimants) from which it is obtained. Treasury received one comment concerning the proposed rule, which is generally in favor of the provision but which suggests that the rule fails to address potential confidentiality issues presented by the use of a third-party vendor by Treasury, such as an insurance statistical aggregator, to collect confidential data.
The 2015 Reauthorization Act expressly provides that Treasury—“to the extent possible”—shall contract with an insurance statistical aggregator to collect data and obtain it in aggregated form, precisely to address confidentiality issues identified in the
Treasury adopts as the final rule Subpart F as it was proposed, subject to the modifications identified above.
Subpart G, §§ 50-60 to 50.63, as modified, was previously adopted by Treasury as an interim final rule, although was initially adopted as Subpart K, §§ 50.100 to 50.103, in order to avoid reduplication of Subparts and section numbers in light of the existing rules. It is adopted here as Subpart G, §§ 50.60 to 50.63, as an interim final rule pending receipt and consideration of additional comments concerning the certification process as identified in the interim final rule. In this version of the interim final rule concerning certification, Treasury has also modified the internal citations within Subpart G to conform to the relevant sections that now apply with the issuance of these additional rules.
Most of the proposed changes to Subpart H addressed modifications required by the 2015 Reauthorization Act. In addition, Treasury proposed new § 50.76, addressing the final netting of claims. Treasury previously received comments on this provision after it was originally proposed in August 2010, and made certain changes to the draft rule as currently proposed in response to those comments.
As Treasury explained in its preamble to this proposed rule, section 103(e)(4) of TRIA provides the Secretary with the sole discretion to determine the time at which claims relating to any insured loss or act of terrorism shall be considered final. Based on that authority, the final netting rule provides the mechanism for the Secretary to determine when claims for the Federal share of compensation shall be considered final, and accordingly that final payments shall be made by Treasury to insurers, or by insurers to Treasury, such that Treasury can close out its claims operation for insured losses for a given calendar year. By contrast, the comment proposes that Treasury leave open the final netting process for further extended periods of time.
Treasury declines to make the proposed change obligating Treasury to necessarily reopen the claims process if an insurer is able to satisfy the 20 percent threshold. As proposed, Treasury will be able to determine that the additional claims experience satisfying the 20 percent threshold arose in an unexpected fashion, such that it could not have been accounted for in any prior commutation process. If it does not appear that the claims in question were otherwise expected—at a time when the likelihood of further claim activity should be quite remote—Treasury would be able to allow for a reopening, assuming no other considerations militate against doing so. However, because the Secretary has sole discretion in determining the time at which claims must be considered to be final, there should not be any mandatory obligation upon the Secretary to further extend the claims process.
Similarly, allowing for a period of not less than 6 months for the provision of requested data would necessarily extend out any commutation process for a period far longer than the time that would reasonably be required. As the commenter acknowledges, “not less than 90 days” means that Treasury may still provide longer than 90 days to the insurer in question, if the insurer shows that a longer period is reasonably required to generate the information called for by Treasury. Imposing a far lengthier default period upon the process, regardless of the time actually necessary to respond to the inquiries, does not strike the appropriate balance in a situation where the statutory goal is to bring to a close Treasury's involvement in the claims process.
Treasury adopts as the final rule Subpart H as it was proposed.
The only substantive change to Subpart I (formerly Subpart G) was new § 50.82, addressing civil penalties in connection with TRIA. The proposed rule tracked the statutory language as to the situations in which a civil penalty may be assessed, and provided (as required by the Act) for any penalty to be assessed only after proceedings on the record and after an opportunity for a hearing is extended to the insurer in question. The proposed rule also identified a proposed increase for inflation, as required by Federal law, although more recent statutory authority now requires an increase in the maximum penalty amount from $1,000,000 to $1,311,850, as distinguished from the $1,325,000 as originally proposed. Treasury has already issued an interim final rule increasing the maximum penalty amount and providing for its annual adjustment, as required by statute.
Treasury received a number of comments in response to the proposed rule. None of the comments challenged the authority for the issuance of the rule, or the fact that the amount of the maximum penalty must be increased for inflation on account of Federal law requirements. A number of commenters
Proposed § 50.82 is based upon the provisions of section 104(e) of TRIA. The violations specified in the proposed regulation are those identified in the statute, which does not prescribe (with the exception of the violations identified in proposed § 50.82(a)(2) and (3)) any heightened standard of conduct or culpability in connection with a violation. At least one of the violations which is not subject to any higher standard—the collection of recoupment amounts, under proposed § 50.82(a)(1)—implicates matters central to the financial mechanisms under which the Program is based. Furthermore, because the maximum penalty amount is either the statutory figure or, if greater, the amount in dispute in cases of a “failure to pay, charge, collect, or remit amounts in accordance with” the Act, modification of the proposed rule as suggested would impose a greater burden on the government to prove a violation than contemplated by the statute, in a situation where the violation has resulted in a failure to pay, charge, collect, or remit amounts even greater than the statutory figure that could be essential to the integrity of the Program.
For these reasons, Treasury declines to modify proposed § 50.82 to include higher standards of culpable conduct than were identified by Congress in TRIA when establishing a civil penalty in the first place. Of course, the culpability of an insurer's conduct in responding to a claim that it is subject to a civil penalty may be relevant to the amount of any penalty that is ultimately imposed, when a violation is identified. Treasury believes, however, that this is best accomplished through the individual adjudication process, and does not warrant a modification to the scope of the civil penalty provision as enacted in TRIA.
Similarly, while Treasury agrees with the comment that, in the event of a claimed violation, Treasury should take into account situations where an insurer takes steps to cure an innocent violation upon notification, Treasury will not modify the rule as proposed. The nature of any claimed violation could clearly have an effect on the amount of any civil penalty assessed, or whether any penalty should be assessed at all. The situation identified by the commenter is one of any number of circumstances that might arise reflecting reduced culpability that could be found by Treasury to justify either a reduction or elimination of any civil penalty assessed. However, because such circumstances are fact dependent and case specific, this is something best addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than through a revision to the rule as originally proposed.
Because of the recent inclusion of a new rule addressing the amount of the civil penalty and its adjustment over time, proposed § 50.82 is also being modified to reference § 50.87—which is renumbered in this Final Rule as § 50.83—as the source of the amount of the civil penalty.
Treasury adopts as the final rule Subpart I as it was proposed, subject to the modification identified above.
The principal changes proposed to Subpart J were in connection with proposed § 50.90 (formerly § 50.70), and were based upon changes to the Program adopted in the 2015 Reauthorization Act—
Treasury adopts as the final rule Subpart J as it was proposed.
The proposed Rule incorporated certain changes and clarifications to Subpart K, involving the Federal Cause of Action and Approval of Settlements by Treasury. These changes are designed to enhance Treasury's ability to evaluate and manage significant claims that could have a material impact upon Treasury's payment of the Federal share of compensation. The balance of the proposed changes to Subpart K made certain clarifying changes or deleted material that is now redundant or unnecessary, and did not seek to establish any substantive changes. Treasury did not receive any comments concerning the proposed revisions to this Subpart.
Treasury adopts as the final rule Subpart K as it was proposed.
The proposed changes in Subpart L incorporated language required by the 2015 Reauthorization Act, or conformed the provisions to Treasury's other data collection authorities under Part 50. Treasury did not receive any comments concerning the proposed revisions to this Subpart.
Treasury adopts as the final rule Subpart L as it was proposed.
Although a substantial number of small entities may be affected, any economic impact will not be significant. Treasury crafted these regulations in a manner that most insurers, including small insurers, should already be collecting and maintaining the data in question as part of their ordinary course of business, such that any additional costs will be occasioned by some reprogramming costs to permit the more efficient reporting of the requested data. Given the character of the information that is sought, Treasury believes that any such costs should be nominal, in light of existing obligations all insurers have to record and retain the information sought by Treasury. Nonetheless, and recognizing that the provisions of the regulations respecting data collection may impose some additional costs and burdens on small insurers, the regulations provide Treasury with the authority to excuse or modify the data collection requirements as applicable to small insurers.
Treasury did receive a number of comments, as addressed above, which questioned the general exclusion of captive insurance companies from Treasury's proposed definition of “small insurers” for purposes of the Program. As explained above, the only consequences of this exclusion are that (1) captive insurers (regardless of their size) will not be evaluated by Treasury in a study of small insurers mandated under the 2015 Reauthorization Act (which Treasury has determined was not meant to address any issues that captive insurers might face); and (2) captive insurers, regardless of their size, will not be subject to data collection requirements instituted for “small insurers”—although, as also explained above, data collection from captive insurers will be addressed separately by Treasury in data collection requests directed specifically to captive insurers in light of the nature of captive insurer operations. Accordingly, Treasury finds that the rule as adopted will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities that might also be captive insurers.
Insurance, Terrorism.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 31 CFR part 50 is revised to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321; Title I, Pub. L. 107-297, 116 Stat. 2322, as amended by Pub. L. 109-144, 119 Stat. 2660, Pub. L. 110-160, 121 Stat. 1839 and Pub. L. 114-1, 129 Stat. 3 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note); Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 601, Title VII (28 U.S.C. 2461 note).
(a)
(b)
(c)
The office responsible for the administration of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act in the Department of the Treasury is the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Office within the Federal Insurance Office. The Treasury Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions prescribes the regulations under the Act.
Any entity that meets the definition of an insurer under the Act is required to participate in the Program.
For purposes of this part:
(a)
(b)
(i) To be an act of terrorism;
(ii) To be a violent act or an act that is dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure;
(iii) To have resulted in damage within the United States, or outside of the United States in the case of:
(A) An air carrier (as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102) or a United States flag vessel (or a vessel based principally in the United States, on which United States income tax is paid and whose insurance coverage is subject to regulation in the United States); or
(B) The premises of a United States mission; and
(iv) To have been committed by an individual or individuals as part of an effort to coerce the civilian population of the United States or to influence the policy or affect the conduct of the United States Government by coercion.
(2)
(i) The act is committed as part of the course of a war declared by the Congress (except with respect to any coverage for workers' compensation); or
(ii) Property and casualty insurance losses resulting from the act, in the aggregate, do not exceed $5,000,000.
(3)
(c)(1)
(2)(i) For purposes of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, an insurer has control over another insurer for purposes of the Program if:
(A) The insurer directly or indirectly or acting through one or more other persons owns, controls, or has power to vote 25 percent or more of any class of voting securities of the other insurer;
(B) The insurer controls in any manner the election of a majority of the directors or trustees of the other insurer; or
(C) The Secretary determines, after notice and opportunity for hearing, that an insurer directly or indirectly exercises a controlling influence over the management or policies of the other insurer, even if there is no control as defined in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) or (c)(2)(i)(B) of this section.
(ii) An entity, including any affiliate thereof, does not have control or exercise controlling influence over a reciprocal insurer under this section if, as of January 12, 2015, the entity, including any affiliate thereof, was acting as an attorney-in-fact for the reciprocal insurer, provided that the entity does not, for reasons other than activities it may perform under the attorney-in-fact relationship, have control over the reciprocal insurer as otherwise defined under this section.
(3) An insurer described in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) or (B) of this section is conclusively deemed to have control.
(4) For purposes of a determination of controlling influence under paragraph (c)(2)(i)(C) of this section, if an insurer is not described in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) or (B) of this section, the following rebuttable presumptions will apply:
(i) If an insurer controls another insurer under the laws of a state, and at least one of the factors listed in paragraph (c)(4)(iv) of this section applies, there is a rebuttable presumption that the insurer that has control under state law exercises a controlling influence over the management or policies of the other insurer for purposes of paragraph (c)(2)(i)(C) of this section.
(ii) If an insurer provides 25 percent or more of another insurer's capital (in the case of a stock insurer), policyholder surplus (in the case of a mutual insurer),
(iii) If an insurer, at any time during a calendar year, supplies 25 percent or more of the underwriting capacity for that year to an insurer that is a syndicate consisting of one or more incorporated or individual unincorporated underwriters, and at least one of the factors in paragraph (c)(4)(iv) of this section applies, there is a rebuttable presumption that the insurer exercises a controlling influence over the syndicate for purposes of paragraph (c)(2)(i)(C) of this section.
(iv) If paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section are not applicable, but two or more of the following factors apply to an insurer, with respect to another insurer, there is a rebuttable presumption that the insurer exercises a controlling influence over the management or policies of the other insurer for purposes of paragraph (c)(2)(i)(C) of this section:
(A) The insurer is one of the two largest shareholders of any class of voting stock;
(B) The insurer holds more than 35 percent of the combined debt securities and equity of the other insurer;
(C) The insurer is party to an agreement pursuant to which the insurer possesses a material economic stake in the other insurer resulting from a profit-sharing arrangement, use of common names, facilities or personnel, or the provision of essential services to the other insurer;
(D) The insurer is party to an agreement that enables the insurer to influence a material aspect of the management or policies of the other insurer;
(E) The insurer would have the ability, other than through the holding of revocable proxies, to direct the votes of more than 25 percent of the other insurer's voting stock in the future upon the occurrence of an event;
(F) The insurer has the power to direct the disposition of more than 25 percent of a class of voting stock of the other insurer in a manner other than a widely dispersed or public offering;
(G) The insurer and/or the insurer's representative or nominee constitute more than one member of the other insurer's board of directors; or
(H) The insurer or its nominee or an officer of the insurer serves as the chairman of the board, chairman of the executive committee, chief executive officer, chief operating officer, chief financial officer or in any position with similar policymaking authority in the other insurer.
(5) An insurer that is not described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section may request a hearing in which the insurer may rebut a presumption of controlling influence under paragraph (c)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section or otherwise request a determination of controlling influence by presenting and supporting its position through written submissions to Treasury, and in Treasury's discretion, through informal oral presentations, in accordance with the procedure in § 50.7.
(6) An insurer's affiliates for a calendar year, for purposes of subpart H of this part, shall be determined in accordance with the timing requirements laid out in § 50.75 of this part.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(1)
(i) Premium information as reported to state regulators through the NAIC should be included in the calculation of direct earned premiums for purposes of the Program only to the extent it reflects premiums for property and casualty insurance issued by the insurer against losses occurring at the locations described in section 102(5)(A) and (B) of the Act.
(ii) Premiums for personal property and casualty lines of insurance (insurance primarily designed to cover personal, family or household risk exposures, with the exception of insurance written to insure 1 to 4 family rental dwellings owned for the business purpose of generating income for the property owner), or premiums for any other insurance coverage that does not meet the definition of property and casualty insurance, should be excluded in the calculation of direct earned premiums for purposes of the Program.
(iii) Personal property and casualty lines of insurance coverage that includes incidental coverage for commercial purposes are primarily personal coverage, and therefore premiums may be fully excluded by an insurer from the calculation of direct earned premium. For purposes of this section, commercial coverage is incidental if less than 25 percent of the total direct earned premium is attributable to commercial coverage. Property and casualty insurance against losses occurring at locations other than the locations described in section 102(5)(A) and (B) of the Act, or other insurance coverage that does not meet the definition of property and casualty insurance, but that includes incidental coverage for commercial risk exposures at such locations, is primarily not commercial, and therefore premiums for such insurance may also be fully excluded by an insurer from the calculation of direct earned premium. For purposes of this section, property and casualty insurance for losses occurring at the locations described in section 102(5)(A) and (B) of the Act is incidental if less than 25 percent of the total direct earned premium for the insurance policy is attributable to coverage at such locations. Also for purposes of this section, coverage for commercial risk exposures is incidental if it is combined with coverages that otherwise do not meet the definition of property and casualty insurance and less than 25 percent of the total direct earned premium for the insurance policy is attributable to the coverage for commercial risk exposures.
(iv) If an insurance policy covers both commercial and personal property and casualty exposures, insurers may allocate the premiums in accordance with the proportion of risk between commercial and personal components
(2)
(i) Direct earned premium may be ascertained by adjusting data maintained by such insurer or reported by such insurer to its state regulator to reflect a breakdown of premiums for commercial and personal property and casualty exposure risk as described in paragraph (h)(1) of this section and, if necessary, re-stated to reflect the accrual method of determining direct earned premium versus direct premium.
(ii) Such an insurer should consider other types of payments that compensate the insurer for risk of loss (contributions, assessments, etc.) as part of its direct earned premium.
(3)
(4)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(1) For calendar years beginning with 2015 through 2019, such amount is the lesser of the aggregate amount, for all insurers, of insured losses once there has been a Program Trigger Event during the calendar year and:
(i) For calendar year 2015: $29,500,000,000;
(ii) For calendar year 2016: $31,500,000,000;
(iii) For calendar year 2017: $33,500,000,000;
(iv) For calendar year 2018: $35,500,000,000; and
(v) For calendar year 2019: $37,500,000,000.
(2) For calendar years beginning with 2020 and any calendar year thereafter as may be necessary, such amount is the lesser of the aggregate amount, for all insurers, of insured losses once there has been a Program Trigger Event during the calendar year and the annual average of the sum of insurer deductibles for all insurers for the prior 3 years, to be calculated by taking
(i) the total amount of direct earned premium reported by insurers to Treasury pursuant to section 50.51 for the three calendar years prior to the calendar year in question, and then dividing that figure by three; and
(ii) Multiplying the resulting three-year average figure by 20%.
(3) Beginning in 2020, Treasury shall publish in the
(n)
(i) Occurs within the United States;
(ii) Occurs to an air carrier (as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102), or to a United States flag vessel (or a vessel based principally in the United States, on which United States income tax is paid and whose insurance coverage is subject to regulation in the United States), regardless of where the loss occurs; however, to the extent a loss occurs to such an air carrier or vessel outside the United States, the insured loss does not include losses covered by third party insurance contracts that are separate from the insurance coverage provided to the air carrier or vessel; or
(iii) Occurs at the premises of any United States mission.
(2) The term insured loss includes reasonable loss adjustment expenses, incurred by an insurer in connection with insured losses, that are allocated and identified by claim file in insurer records, including expenses incurred in the investigation, adjustment, and defense of claims, but excluding staff salaries, overhead, and other insurer expenses that would have been incurred notwithstanding the insured loss.
(3) The term insured loss does not include:
(i) Punitive or exemplary damages awarded or paid in connection with the Federal cause of action specified in section 107(a)(1) of the Act. The term “punitive or exemplary damages” means damages that are not compensatory but are an award of money made to a claimant solely to punish or deter; or
(ii) Extra-contractual damages awarded against, or paid by, an insurer; or
(iii) Payments by an insurer in excess of policy limits.
(o)
(1)(i) The entity must fall within at least one of the following categories:
(A) It is licensed or admitted to engage in the business of providing primary or excess insurance in any state (including, but not limited to, state licensed captive insurance companies, state licensed or admitted risk retention groups, and state licensed or admitted farm and county mutuals) and, if a joint underwriting association, pooling
(
(
(
(B) It is not licensed or admitted to engage in the business of providing primary or excess insurance in any state, but is an eligible surplus line carrier listed on the NAIC Quarterly Listing of Alien Insurers;
(C) It is approved or accepted for the purpose of offering property and casualty insurance by a Federal agency in connection with maritime, energy, or aviation activity, but only to the extent of such Federal approval of property and casualty insurance coverage offered by the insurer in connection with maritime, energy, or aviation activity;
(D) It is a state residual market insurance entity or state workers' compensation fund; or
(E) As determined by the Secretary, it falls within any of the classes or types of captive insurers or other self-insurance arrangements by municipalities and other entities.
(ii) If an entity falls within more than one category described in paragraph (o)(1)(i) of this section, the entity is considered to fall within the first category within which it falls for purposes of the program.
(2) The entity must receive direct earned premium, except in the case of:
(i) State residual market insurance entities and state workers' compensation funds, to the extent provided in subpart D of this part; and
(ii) Other classes or types of captive insurers and other self-insurance arrangements by municipalities and other entities to the extent provided for in subpart E of this part.
(3) The entity must meet any other criteria as prescribed by Treasury.
(p)
(1) For an insurer that has had a full year of operations during the calendar year immediately preceding the applicable calendar year, the value of an insurer's direct earned premiums during the immediately preceding calendar year, multiplied by 20 percent; and
(2) For an insurer that has not had a full year of operations during the immediately preceding calendar year, the insurer deductible will be based on data for direct earned premiums for the applicable calendar year multiplied by 20 percent. If the insurer does not have a full year of operations during the applicable calendar year, the direct earned premiums for the applicable calendar year will be annualized to determine the insurer deductible.
(q)
(r)
(s)
(t)
(u)
(v)
(1) $100,000,000 with respect to calendar year 2015 insured losses;
(2) $120,000,000 with respect to calendar year 2016 insured losses;
(3) $140,000,000 with respect to calendar year 2017 insured losses;
(4) $160,000,000 with respect to calendar year 2018 insured losses;
(5) $180,000,000 with respect to calendar year 2019 insured losses; or
(6) $200,000,000 with respect to calendar year 2020 insured losses and with respect to any calendar year thereafter.
(w)
(1) Means commercial lines within only the following lines of insurance from the NAIC's Exhibit of Premiums and Losses (commonly known as Statutory Page 14): Line 1—Fire; Line 2.1—Allied Lines; Line 5.1—Commercial Multiple Peril (non-liability portion); Line 5.2—Commercial Multiple Peril (liability portion); Line 8—Ocean Marine; Line 9—Inland Marine; Line 16—Workers' Compensation; Line 17—Other Liability; Line 18—Products Liability; Line 22—Aircraft (all perils); and Line 27—Boiler and Machinery; and
(2) Does not include:
(i) Federal crop insurance issued or reinsured under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501
(ii) Private mortgage insurance (as defined in section 2 of the Homeowners Protection Act of 1998) (12 U.S.C. 4901) or title insurance;
(iii) Financial guaranty insurance issued by monoline financial guaranty insurance corporations;
(iv) Insurance for medical malpractice;
(v) Health or life insurance, including group life insurance;
(vi) Flood insurance provided under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001
(vii) Reinsurance or retrocessional reinsurance;
(viii) Commercial automobile insurance, including insurance reported under Lines 19.3 (Commercial Auto No-Fault (personal injury protection)), 19.4 (Other Commercial Auto Liability) and 21.2 (Commercial Auto Physical Damage) of the NAIC's Exhibit of Premiums and Losses (commonly known as Statutory Page 14);
(ix) Burglary and theft insurance, including insurance reported under Line 26 (Burglary and Theft) of the NAIC's Exhibit of Premiums and Losses (commonly known as Statutory Page 14);
(x) Surety insurance, including insurance reported under Line 24 (Surety) of the NAIC's Exhibit of Premiums and Losses (commonly known as Statutory Page 14);
(xi) Professional liability insurance as defined in paragraph (t) of this section; or
(xii) Farm owners multiple peril insurance, including insurance reported under Line 3 (Farmowners Multiple Peril) of the NAIC's Exhibit of Premiums and Losses (commonly known as Statutory Page 14).
(x)
(y)
(z)
(aa)
(bb)
(cc)
(dd)
(ee)
(1) Are within the insurer deductibles of insurers, or
(2) Are within the portions of losses in excess of insurer deductibles that are not compensated through payments made as a result of claims for the Federal share of compensation.
(ff)
Unless otherwise expressly provided in the regulation, any date in these regulations is intended to be applied so that the day begins at 12:01 a.m. and ends at midnight on that date.
(a) An insurer will be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of the Act to the extent the insurer reasonably relied on Interim Guidance prior to the effective date of applicable regulations.
(b) For purposes of this section, Interim Guidance means the following documents, which are available from Treasury at
(1) Interim Guidance I issued by Treasury on December 3, 2002;
(2) Interim Guidance II issued by Treasury on December 18, 2002;
(3) Interim Guidance III issued by Treasury on January 22, 2003;
(4) Interim Guidance IV issued by Treasury on December 29, 2005;
(5) Interim Guidance V issued by Treasury on December 31, 2007; and
(6) Interim Guidance VI issued by Treasury on February 4, 2015.
(a) An insurer or insurers not having control over another insurer under § 50.4(c)(2)(i) or (ii) may make a written submission to Treasury to rebut a presumption of controlling influence under § 50.4(c)(4)(i) through (iv) or otherwise to request a determination of controlling influence. Such submissions shall be made to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Office, Department of the Treasury, Room 1410, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20220. The submission should be entitled, “Controlling Influence Submission,” and should provide the full name and address of the submitting insurer(s) and the name, title, address and telephone number of the designated contact person(s) for such insurer(s).
(b) Treasury will review submissions and determine whether Treasury needs additional written or orally presented information. In its discretion, Treasury may schedule a date, time, and place for an oral presentation by the insurer(s).
(c) An insurer or insurers must provide all relevant facts and circumstances concerning the relationship(s) between or among the affected insurers and the control factors in § 50.4(c)(4)(i) through (iv); and must explain in detail any basis for why the insurer believes that no controlling influence exists (if a presumption is being rebutted) in light of the particular facts and circumstances, as well as the Act's language, structure and purpose. Any confidential business or trade secret information submitted to Treasury should be clearly marked. Treasury will handle any subsequent request for information designated by an insurer as confidential business or trade secret information in accordance with Treasury's Freedom of Information Act regulations at 31 CFR part 1.
(d) Treasury will review and consider the insurer submission and other relevant facts and circumstances. Unless otherwise extended by Treasury, within 60 days after receipt of a complete submission, including any additional information requested by Treasury, and including any oral presentation, Treasury will issue a final determination of whether one insurer has a controlling influence over another insurer for purposes of the Program. The determination shall set forth Treasury's basis for its determination.
Persons actually or potentially affected by the Act or regulations in this Part may request an interpretation of the Act or regulations by writing to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Office, Room 1410, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20220, giving a detailed explanation of the facts and circumstances and the reason why an interpretation is needed. A requester should segregate and mark any confidential business or trade secret information clearly. Treasury in its discretion will provide written responses to requests for interpretation. Treasury reserves the right to decline to provide a response in any case. Except in the case of any confidential business or trade secret information, Treasury will make written requests for interpretations and responses publicly available at the Treasury Department
(a)
(1) The premium charged for insured losses covered by the Program; and
(2) The Federal share of compensation for insured losses under the Program.
(b)
For purposes of this Subpart, unless the context indicates otherwise, the term “disclosure” or “disclosures” refers to the disclosure described in section 103(b)(2) of the Act and § 50.10. The term “cap disclosure” refers to the disclosure required by section 103(b)(3) of the Act and § 50.15.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
An insurer is deemed to be in compliance with the requirement of providing disclosure “at the time of offer and of renewal of the policy” under § 50.10(b) if the insurer makes the disclosure no later than the time the insurer first formally offers to provide insurance coverage or renew a policy for a current policyholder.
An insurer is deemed to be in compliance with the requirement of providing disclosure on a “separate line item in the policy” under § 50.10(b) if the insurer makes the disclosure:
(a) On the declarations page of the policy;
(b) Elsewhere within the policy itself; or
(c) In any rider or endorsement, or other document that is made a part of the policy.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Makes the disclosure no later than the time the insurer first formally offers to provide insurance coverage or renew a policy for a current policyholder; and
(2) If terrorism risk coverage is purchased, the insurer makes clear and conspicuous reference back to that disclosure, as well as the final terms of terrorism insurance coverage, at the time the transaction is completed.
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(1) Make available, in all of its property and casualty insurance policies, coverage for insured losses; and
(2) Make available property and casualty insurance coverage for insured losses that does not differ materially from the terms, amounts, and other coverage limitations applicable to losses arising from events other than acts of terrorism.
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(2) If an insurer subject to state regulation first makes available coverage in accordance with § 50.20 and the state permits certain exclusions or allows for other limitations, or an insurance policy is not governed by state law requirements, then the insurer may subsequently offer limited coverage or coverage with exclusions.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
Treasury may request from insurers such data and information as may be reasonably required in support of Treasury's administration of the Program.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) The data and information required to be provided under this subsection may be modified annually by Treasury. Any modification shall be made during the prior calendar year, and Treasury shall provide insurers at least 90 days before requiring collection of any newly specified data or information.
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(1) Changes to the market share, premium volume, and policyholder surplus of small insurers relative to large insurers;
(2) How the property and casualty insurance market for terrorism risk differs between small and large insurers, and whether such a difference exists within other perils;
(3) The impact on small insurers of the Program's mandatory availability requirement under section 103(c) of the Act;
(4) The effect on small insurers of increasing the trigger amount for the Program under section 103(e)(1)(B) of the Act;
(5) The availability and cost of private reinsurance for small insurers; and
(6) The impact that state workers compensation laws have on small insurers and workers compensation carriers in the terrorism risk insurance marketplace.
(a)
(b)
(1) A listing of each claim by name of insured, catastrophe code, line of business, and in the case of an affiliated group of insurers, the particular insurer or insurers within the group associated with each claim;
(2) Amounts paid, both loss and loss adjustment expenses, in connection with the claim as of the effective date of the report; and
(3) Amounts reserved, both loss and loss adjustment expenses, in connection with the claim as of the effective date of the report.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(1) Be handled and stored by Treasury in an appropriately secure manner;
(2) Be considered, where appropriate, to be trade secrets or commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential; and
(3) Not be publicly released in any unaggregated form in which a consumer, policyholder, or insurer is identifiable.
(b)
(c)
(2) Any requirement under Federal or state law to the extent otherwise applicable, or any requirement pursuant to a written agreement in effect between the original source of any non-publicly available data or information and the source of such data or information to the Secretary, regarding privacy or confidentiality of any data or information in the possession of the source to the Secretary, shall continue to apply to such data or information after the data or information has been provided pursuant to this Subpart.
(3) Any data or information obtained by the Secretary under subparts F or G of this part may be made available to state insurance regulatory authorities, individually or collectively through an information-sharing agreement that:
(i) Shall comply with applicable Federal law; and
(ii) Shall not constitute a waiver of, or otherwise affect, any privilege or immunity under Federal or state law (including any privilege referred to in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and the rules of any Federal or State court) to which the data or information is otherwise subject.
(4) Section 552 of title 5, United States Code, including any exceptions thereunder, shall apply to any data or information submitted under this Subpart by an insurer or affiliate of an insurer.
(a)
(b)
(1) The Secretary commences review of whether an act satisfies the definition in § 50.4(b);
(2) Within 30 days of the Secretary commencing review, Treasury publishes the notice required by § 50.61(a). During such review, the schedule of public notifications in § 50.61(b) shall apply, as appropriate;
(3) The Secretary's review finds that the act satisfies the elements for certification under § 50.4(b)(1)(i) through (iv), and that it is not otherwise precluded from certification by § 50.4(b)(2); and
(4) Within 30 days or as soon as otherwise practicable after the review identified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section concludes that the act satisfies the necessary criteria, the Secretary consults with the Attorney General of the United States and the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to section 102(1)(A) of the Act.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(2) An insurer not required by Treasury to submit information under paragraph (a)(1) of this section may voluntarily submit information to the Secretary as specified in public notifications issued by Treasury.
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(i) 85 percent of that portion of the insurer's aggregate insured losses that exceeds its insurer deductible during calendar year 2015;
(ii) 84 percent of that portion of the insurer's aggregate insured losses that exceeds its insurer deductible during calendar year 2016;
(iii) 83 percent of that portion of the insurer's aggregate insured losses that exceeds its insurer deductible during calendar year 2017;
(iv) 82 percent of that portion of the insurer's aggregate insured losses that exceeds its insurer deductible during calendar year 2018;
(v) 81 percent of that portion of the insurer's aggregate insured losses that exceeds its insurer deductible during calendar year 2019; and
(vi) 80 percent of that portion of the insurer's aggregate insured losses that exceeds its insurer deductible during calendar year 2020 and any calendar year thereafter.
(2) The percentages in paragraph (a)(1) of this section are subject to any adjustments described in § 50.71 and to the cap of $100 billion as provided in section 103(e)(2) of the Act.
(b)
(1) For insured losses resulting from acts of terrorism taking place in calendar year 2015: $100 million;
(2) For insured losses resulting from acts of terrorism taking place in calendar year 2016: $120 million;
(3) For insured losses resulting from acts of terrorism taking place in calendar year 2017: $140 million;
(4) For insured losses resulting from acts of terrorism taking place in calendar year 2018: $160 million;
(5) For insured losses resulting from acts of terrorism taking place in calendar year 2019: $180 million;
(6) For insured losses resulting from acts of terrorism taking place in calendar year 2020 and any calendar year thereafter: $200 million.
(c)
(1) The insurer is an entity, including an affiliate thereof, that meets the requirements of § 50.4(o);
(2) The insurer's insured losses, as defined in § 50.4(n) and limited by paragraph (d) of this section (including the allocated dollar value of the insurer's proportionate share of insured losses from a state residual market insurance entity or a state workers' compensation fund as described in § 50.33), have exceeded its insurer deductible as defined in § 50.4(p);
(3) The insurer has paid or is prepared to pay an insured loss, based on a filed claim for the insured loss;
(4) Neither the insurer's claim for Federal payment nor any underlying
(5) The insurer has provided a clear and conspicuous disclosure as required by §§ 50.10 through 50.14 and a cap disclosure as required by § 50.15;
(6) The insurer offered coverage for insured losses and the offer was accepted by the insured prior to the act which results in the insured loss;
(7) The insurer took all steps reasonably necessary to properly and carefully investigate the insured loss and otherwise processed the insured loss using practices appropriate for the business of insurance;
(8) The insured loss is within the scope of coverage issued by the insurer under the terms and conditions of one or more policies for commercial property and casualty insurance as defined in § 50.4(w); and
(9) The procedures specified in this Subpart have been followed and all conditions for payment have been met.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
Each insurer shall submit to Treasury a Notice on a form prescribed by Treasury whenever the insurer's aggregate insured losses (including reserves for “incurred but not reported” losses) within a calendar year exceed an amount equal to 50 percent of the insurer's deductible as specified in § 50.4(p). Insurers are advised that the form for the Notice of Deductible Erosion will include an initial estimate of aggregate insured losses for the calendar year, the amount of the insurer deductible, and an estimate of the Federal share of compensation for the insurer's aggregate insured losses. In the case of an affiliated group of insurers, the Notice will include the name and address of a single designated insurer within the affiliated group that will serve as the single point of contact for the purpose of providing loss and compliance certifications as required in § 50.73 and for receiving, disbursing, and distributing payments of the Federal share of compensation in accordance with § 50.74. An insurer, at its option, may elect to include with its Notice of Deductible Erosion the certification of direct earned premium required by § 50.73(b)(3).
(a)
(b)
(1) Basic information, on a form prescribed by Treasury, about each insured loss paid (or to be paid pursuant to § 50.73(b)(2)(i)) by the insurer. The form will include:
(i) A listing of each insured loss paid (or to be paid pursuant to § 50.73(b)(2)(i)) by the insurer by catastrophe code and line of business;
(ii) The total amount of reinsurance recovered from other sources;
(iii) A calculation of the aggregate insured losses sustained by the insurer above its insurer deductible for the calendar year; and
(iv) The amount the insurer claims as the Federal share of compensation for its aggregate insured losses.
(2) A certification that the insurer is in compliance with the provisions of section 103(b) of the Act and this part, including certifications that:
(i) The underlying insured losses reported pursuant to § 50.73(b)(1) either: Have been paid by the insurer; or will be paid by the insurer upon receipt of an advance payment of the Federal share of compensation as soon as possible, consistent with the insurer's normal business practices, but not longer than five business days after receipt of the Federal share of compensation;
(ii) The underlying claims for insured losses were filed by persons who suffered an insured loss, or by persons acting on behalf of such persons;
(iii) The underlying claims for insured losses were processed in accordance with appropriate business practices and the procedures specified in this subpart;
(iv) The insurer has complied with the disclosure requirements of §§ 50.10 through 50.14, and the cap disclosure requirement of § 50.15, for each underlying insured loss that is included in the amount of the insurer's aggregate insured losses; and
(v) The insurer has complied with the mandatory availability requirements of subpart C of this part.
(3) A certification of the amount of the insurer's direct earned premium, together with the calculation of its insurer deductible (provided this certification was not submitted previously with the Notice of Deductible Erosion).
(4) A certification that the insurer will disburse payment of the Federal share of compensation in accordance with this Subpart.
(5) A certification that if Treasury has determined a
(c)
(1) A form as described in § 50.73(b)(1); and
(2) A certification as described in § 50.73(b)(2).
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(i) Receiving payments of the Federal share of compensation;
(ii) Disbursing payments to insureds and claimants; and
(iii) Transferring payments to the insurer or affiliated insurers for insured losses reported as already paid.
(2)
(e)
(f)
For the purposes of this subpart, an insurer's affiliates for any calendar year shall be determined by the circumstances existing on the date of the act which is the Program Trigger Event for that calendar year.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(i) Amounts of case reserves reported by insurers to Treasury for open underlying insured losses;
(ii) The rate at which claims for the Federal share of compensation for insured losses are being made by insurers to Treasury;
(iii) The rate at which new underlying insured losses are being added by insurers to their Supplementary Certifications of Loss and reported;
(iv) The predominant lines of business for which underlying insured losses are being reported;
(v) Tort and contract statutes of limitations relevant to insured losses and the manner in which they are being applied by the Federal courts;
(vi) Common business practices;
(vii) Issues that are delaying final resolution of insured losses;
(viii) The application of the liability limitations and procedures under the Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 441
(ix) Issues related to the cap on annual liability for insurer losses, including whether a projection that the cap on annual liability will be reached in connection with any calendar year indicates that no Final Netting Date should be set for that calendar year;
(x) Treasury's claims administration costs; and
(xii) Such other factors as the Secretary considers appropriate to take into account.
(2)
(c)
(d)
(1) In lieu of continued submission of Supplemental Certifications of Loss after the Final Netting Date as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, Treasury may require, or consider an insurer's request for, a commutation of an insurer's future claims for the Federal share of compensation based on estimates for the underlying insured losses reported to Treasury on or before the Final Netting Date. The payment by Treasury of a final commuted amount to an insurer will discharge Treasury from all future liabilities to the insurer for the Federal share of compensation for insured losses for the applicable calendar year. In the case of an affiliated group of insurers, the requirements of § 50.74(f) apply, and payment of the final commuted amount to the designated insurer of the affiliated group discharges Treasury's payment obligation to the insurers in the affiliated group for insured losses for the applicable calendar year.
(2) If future claims are to be commuted, Treasury may require additional information from the insurer, including an insurer's justification for a final payment amount with necessary actuarial factors and methodology, and pertinent information regarding the insurer's business relationships and other reinsurance recoverables. Insurers will be required to justify discount and other factors from which final payment amounts are derived. If Treasury notifies an insurer of a requirement to submit additional information to inform its commutation decision, the insurer will be provided (depending upon the complexity of the material sought) no less than 90 days from the date of notification to submit material required in the notice. If the insurer fails to provide the requested information, it will forfeit the right to future payments from Treasury. Treasury will evaluate such information in order to determine a final payment amount or (if applicable) an amount to be repaid to Treasury. Treasury may determine that it will not consider commutation until it has completed an audit of an insurer's insured losses pursuant to the authority set forth in Subpart I of these regulations.
(3) Payments of commuted amounts are not considered to be advance payments requiring a segregated account as described in § 50.74(d).
(4) Notwithstanding § 50.70(d), a payment by Treasury of a final commuted amount to an insurer is final unless:
(i) Treasury is put on notice that an insurer's claim was fraudulent or that other conditions for Federal payment were not met, in which case the insurer will be required to repay amounts that were not due; or
(ii) The exception in paragraph (e) of this section applies, in which case Treasury may make additional payments for insured losses, but only under the conditions described in paragraph (e).
(e)
The Secretary of the Treasury, or an authorized representative, shall have, upon reasonable notice, access to all books, documents, papers and records of an insurer that are pertinent to amounts paid to the insurer as the Federal share of compensation for insured losses, or pertinent to any Federal terrorism policy surcharge that is imposed pursuant to subpart J of this part, for the purposes of investigation, confirmation, audit, and examination.
(a) Each insurer that seeks payment of a Federal share of compensation under subpart H of this part shall retain such records as are necessary to fully disclose all material matters pertinent to insured losses and the Federal share of compensation sought under the Program, including, but not limited to, records regarding premiums and insured losses for all commercial property and casualty insurance issued by the insurer and information relating to any adjustment in the amount of the Federal share of compensation payable. Insurers shall maintain detailed records for not less than five (5) years from the termination dates of all reinsurance agreements involving property and casualty insurance subject to the Act. Records relating to premiums shall be retained and available for review for not less than three (3) years following the conclusion of the policy year. Records relating to underlying claims shall be retained for not less than five (5) years following the final adjustment of the claim.
(b) Each insurer that collects a Federal terrorism policy surcharge as required by Subpart J of this part shall retain records related to such surcharge, including records of the property and casualty insurance premiums subject to the surcharge, the amount of the surcharge imposed on each policy, aggregate Federal terrorism policy surcharges collected, and aggregate Federal terrorism policy surcharges remitted to Treasury during each assessment period. Such records shall be retained and kept available for review for not less than three (3) years following the conclusion of the assessment period or settlement of accounts with Treasury, whichever is later.
(a)
(1) Has failed to charge, collect, or remit the Federal terrorism policy surcharge under Subpart J;
(2) Has intentionally provided to Treasury erroneous information regarding premium or loss amounts;
(3) Submits to Treasury fraudulent claims under the Program for insured losses;
(4) Has failed to provide any disclosures or other information required by Treasury; or
(5) Has otherwise failed to comply with provisions of the Act or these regulations.
(b)
(c)
(1) The opportunity for a written submission by the insurer that provides all relevant facts and circumstances concerning the alleged conduct, including any information that the insurer wishes Treasury to consider in connection with the alleged conduct; and
(2) A hearing on the record, unless waived by the insurer, during which Treasury and the insurer may present further information respecting the conduct in question.
(d)
(a)
(b)
(a) Pursuant to section 103(e) of the Act, the Secretary shall impose, and insurers shall collect, such Federal terrorism policy surcharges as needed to recover 140 percent of the mandatory recoupment amount for any calendar year.
(b) In the Secretary's discretion, the Secretary may recover any portion of the aggregate Federal share of compensation that exceeds the mandatory recoupment amount through a Federal terrorism policy surcharge based on the factors set forth in section 103(e)(7)(D) of the Act.
(c) If the Secretary imposes a Federal terrorism policy surcharge as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, then the required amounts, based on the extent to which payments for the Federal share of compensation have been made by the collection deadlines in section 103(e)(7)(E) of the Act, shall be collected in accordance with such deadlines:
(1) For any act of terrorism that occurs on or before December 31, 2017, the Secretary shall collect all required amounts by September 30, 2019;
(2) For any act of terrorism that occurs between January 1 and December 31, 2018, the Secretary shall collect 35 percent of any required amounts by September 30, 2019, and the remainder by September 30, 2024; and
(3) For any act of terrorism that occurs on or after January 1, 2019, the Secretary shall collect all required amounts by September 30, 2024.
(a) If payments for the Federal share of compensation have been made for a calendar year, and Treasury determines that insured loss information is sufficiently developed and credible to serve as a basis for calculating recoupment amounts, Treasury will make an initial determination of any mandatory or discretionary recoupment amounts for that calendar year.
(b)(1) Within 90 days after certification of an act of terrorism, the Secretary shall publish in the
(2) If at any time Treasury projects that payments for the Federal share of compensation will be made for a calendar year, and that in order to meet the collection timing requirements of section 103(e)(7)(E) of the Act it is necessary to use an estimate of such payments as a basis for calculating recoupment amounts, Treasury will make an initial determination of any mandatory recoupment amounts for that calendar year.
(c) Following the initial determination of recoupment amounts for a calendar year, Treasury will recalculate any mandatory or discretionary recoupment amount as necessary and appropriate, and at least annually, until a final recoupment amount for the calendar year is determined. Treasury will compare any recalculated recoupment amount to amounts already remitted and/or to be remitted to Treasury for a Federal terrorism policy surcharge previously established to determine whether any additional amount will be recouped by Treasury.
(d) For the purpose of determining initial or recalculated recoupment amounts, Treasury may issue a data call to insurers for insurer deductible and insured loss information by calendar year. Treasury's determination of the aggregate amount of insured losses from Program Trigger Events of all insurers for a calendar year will be based on the amounts reported in response to a data call and any other information Treasury in its discretion considers appropriate. Submission of data in response to a data call shall be on a form promulgated by Treasury.
(a) Treasury will establish the Federal terrorism policy surcharge based on the following factors and considerations:
(1) In the case of a mandatory recoupment amount, the requirement to collect 140 percent of that amount;
(2) The total dollar amount to be recouped as a percentage of the latest available annual aggregate industry direct written premium information;
(3) The adjustment factors for terrorism loss risk-spreading premiums described in section 103(e)(8)(D) of the Act;
(4) The annual 3 percent limitation on terrorism loss risk-spreading premiums collected on a discretionary basis as provided in section 103(e)(8)(C) of the Act;
(5) A preferred minimum initial assessment period of one full year and subsequent extension periods in full year increments;
(6) The collection timing requirements of section 103(e)(8)(E) of the Act;
(7) The likelihood that the amount of the Federal terrorism policy surcharge may result in the collection of an aggregate recoupment amount in excess of the planned recoupment amount; and
(8) Such other factors as the Secretary considers appropriate to take into account.
(b) The Federal terrorism policy surcharge shall be the obligation of the policyholder and is payable to the insurer with the premium for a property and casualty insurance policy in effect during the assessment period established by Treasury. See § 50.94(c).
(a) Treasury will provide notifications of recoupment through publication of notices in the
(b) Treasury will provide reasonable advance notice to insurers of any initial Federal terrorism policy surcharge effective date. This effective date shall be January 1 of the calendar year following publication of the notice, unless such date would not provide for sufficient notice of implementation while meeting the collection timing requirements of section 103(e)(8)(E) of the Act.
(c) Treasury will provide reasonable advance notice to insurers of any modification or cessation of the Federal terrorism policy surcharge.
(d) Treasury will provide notification to insurers annually as to the continuation of the Federal terrorism policy surcharge.
(a) Insurers shall collect a Federal terrorism policy surcharge from policyholders as required by Treasury.
(b) Policies subject to the Federal terrorism policy surcharge are those for which direct written premium is reported on commercial lines of business on the NAIC's Exhibit of Premiums and Losses of the NAIC Annual Statement (commonly known as Statutory Page 14) as provided in § 50.4(w)(1), or equivalently reported.
(c) For policies subject to the Federal terrorism policy surcharge, the surcharge shall be imposed and collected on a written premium basis for policies that become effective or renew during the assessment period. All new, renewal, mid-term, and audit premiums for a policy term are subject to the surcharge in effect on the policy term effective date. Notwithstanding this paragraph, if the premium for a policy term that would otherwise be subject to the surcharge is revised after the end of the reporting period described in § 50.95(e), then any additional premium attributable to such revision is not subject to the Surcharge. For purposes of this Subpart:
(1) Written premium basis means the premium amount charged a policyholder by an insurer for property and casualty insurance, including all premiums, policy expense constants and fees defined as premium pursuant to the Statements of Statutory Accounting Principles established by the NAIC, as adopted by the state for which the premium will be reported.
(2) In the case of a policy providing multiple insurance coverages, if an insurer cannot identify the premium amount charged a policyholder specifically for property and casualty insurance under the policy, then:
(i) If the insurer estimates that the portion of the premium amount charged for coverage other than property and casualty insurance is
(ii) If the insurer estimates that the portion of the premium amount charged for coverage other than property and casualty insurance is not
(3) The Federal terrorism policy surcharge is not considered premium.
(d) A policyholder must pay the applicable Federal terrorism policy
(e) When an insurer returns an unearned premium, or otherwise refunds premium to a policyholder, it shall also return any Federal terrorism policy surcharge collected that is attributable to the refunded unearned premium. Notwithstanding this paragraph, if the written premium for a policy is revised and refunded after the end of the reporting period described in § 50.95(e), then the insurer is not required to refund any Surcharge that is attributable to the refunded premium.
(f) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section, if the expense of collecting the Federal terrorism policy surcharge from all policyholders of an insurer during an assessment period exceeds the amount of the Surcharges anticipated to be collected, such insurer may satisfy its obligation to collect by omitting actual collection and instead remitting to Treasury the amount otherwise due.
(g) The Federal terrorism policy surcharge is repayment of Federal financial assistance in an amount required by law. No fee or commission shall be charged on the Federal terrorism policy surcharge.
(a) Each insurer shall report direct written premium and Federal terrorism policy surcharges to Treasury on a monthly and annual basis during the assessment period. Reporting will be on a form prescribed by Treasury and will be due according to the following schedule:
(1)
(2)
(b) The monthly statements provided to Treasury will include the following:
(1) Cumulative calendar year direct written premium adjusted for premium not subject to the Federal terrorism policy surcharge, summarized by policy year.
(2) The aggregate Federal terrorism policy surcharge amount calculated by applying the established surcharge percentage to the insurer's adjusted direct written premium by policy year.
(3) Insurer certification of the submission.
(c) The annual statements to be provided to Treasury will include the following:
(1) Direct written premium, adjusted for premium not subject to the Federal terrorism policy surcharge, summarized by policy year and by commercial line of insurance as specified in § 50.4(w).
(2) The aggregate Federal terrorism policy surcharge amount calculated by applying the established surcharge percentage to the insurer's adjusted direct written premium by policy year.
(3) In the case of an insurer that has chosen not to collect the Federal terrorism policy surcharge from its policyholders as provided in § 50.94(f), a certification that the expense of collecting the Surcharge during the assessment period would have exceeded the amount of the surcharges collected over the assessment period.
(4) Insurer certification of the submission.
(d) The calculated aggregate Federal terrorism policy surcharge amount, as described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2) of this section, shall be remitted to Treasury upon submission of each monthly and annual statement. Through its submitted statements, an insurer obtains credit for a refund of any Federal terrorism policy surcharge previously remitted to Treasury that was subsequently returned by the insurer to a policyholder as attributable to refunded premium under § 50.94(e). A negative calculated amount in a monthly or annual statement indicates payment from Treasury is due to the insurer.
(e) Reporting shall continue for the one-year period following the end of the assessment period established by Treasury, unless otherwise permitted by Treasury.
Notwithstanding § 50.4(o), for purposes of the collection, reporting and remittance of Federal terrorism policy surcharges to Treasury, the definition of insurer shall not include any affiliate of the insurer.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) Limit the liability of any government, organization, or person who knowingly participates in, conspires to commit, aids and abets, or commits any act of terrorism;
(2) Affect any party's contractual right to arbitrate a dispute; or
(3) Affect any provision of the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (Pub. L. 107-42; 49 U.S.C. 40101 note).
All State causes of action of any kind for property damage, personal injury, or death arising out of or resulting from an act of terrorism that are otherwise available under state law are preempted, except that, pursuant to section 107(b) of the Act, nothing in this section shall limit in any way the liability of any government, organization, or person who knowingly participates in, conspires to commit, aids and abets, or commits the act of terrorism certified by the Secretary.
(a)
(1) Any portion of the proposed settlement amount that is attributable to an insured loss or losses involving personal injury or death in the aggregate is $2 million or more per third-party claimant, regardless of the number of causes of action or insured losses being settled; or
(2) Any portion of the proposed settlement amount that is attributable to an insured loss or losses involving property damage (including loss of use) in the aggregate is $10 million or more per third-party claimant, regardless of the number of causes of action or insured losses being settled.
(b)
(c)
(1) The proposed settlement compensates for a third-party's loss, the liability for which is an insured loss under the terms and conditions of the underlying commercial property and casualty insurance policy, as certified by the insurer pursuant to § 50.103(d)(2);
(2) Any amount of the proposed settlement is attributable to punitive or exemplary damages intended to punish or deter (whether or not specifically so described as such damages);
(3) The settlement amount offsets amounts received from the United States pursuant to any other Federal program;
(4) The settlement amount does not include any items such as fees and expenses of attorneys, experts, and other professionals that have caused the insured losses under the underlying commercial property and casualty insurance policy to be overstated; and
(5) Any other criteria that Treasury may consider appropriate, depending on the facts and circumstances surrounding the settlement, including the information contained in § 50.103.
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) A brief description of the claim against the insured, the amount of the claim, the operative policy terms, and defenses to coverage;
(2) A certification by the insurer that the settlement is for a third-party's loss, the liability for which is an insured loss under the terms and conditions of the underlying commercial property and casualty insurance policy;
(3) A brief description of all damages allegedly sustained and an itemized statement of all damages by category (
(4) A statement from the insurer or its attorney in support of the settlement;
(5) The total dollar amount of the proposed settlement and the amount of the proposed settlement which is an insured loss;
(6) Indication as to whether the settlement was negotiated by counsel;
(7) The amount to be paid that will compensate for any items such as fees and expenses of attorneys, experts, and other professionals for their services and expenses related to the insured loss and/or settlement and the net amount to be received by the third-party after such payment;
(8) The amount(s) received from the United States pursuant to any other Federal program(s) for compensation of insured losses related to an act of terrorism;
(9) The proposed terms of the written settlement agreement, including release language and subrogation terms;
(10) Other relevant agreements, including:
(i) Admissions of liability or insurance coverage;
(ii) Determinations of the number of occurrences under a commercial property and casualty insurance policy;
(iii) The allocation of paid amounts or amounts to be paid to certain policies, or to a specific policy, coverage and/or aggregate limits;
(iv) Any other agreement that may affect the payment or amount of the Federal share of compensation to be paid to the insurer; and
(v) Any other relevant agreement requested by Treasury.
(11) A statement indicating whether the proposed settlement has been approved by the Federal court or is subject to such approval and whether such approval is expected or likely; and
(12) Such other information that is related to the insured loss as may be requested by Treasury that it deems necessary to evaluate the proposed settlement.
An insurer shall not waive its rights of subrogation under its property and casualty insurance policy with respect to any losses the payment of which the insurer intends to include in its insurer deductible or the aggregate insured losses for purposes of calculating the Federal share of compensation of its insured losses and shall, unless upon request the United States agrees in writing to forbear from exercising such right, preserve the subrogation right of the United States as provided by section 107(c) of the Act by not taking any action that would prejudice the subrogation right of the United States.
Pursuant to section 103 of the Act, if the aggregate insured losses exceed $100,000,000,000 during a calendar year:
(a) The Secretary shall not make any payment for any portion of the amount of such losses that exceeds $100,000,000,000;
(b) An insurer that has met its insurer deductible shall not be liable for the payment of any portion of the amount of such losses that exceeds $100,000,000,000; and
(c) The Secretary shall determine the
Pursuant to section 103(e)(3) of the Act, the Secretary shall provide an initial notice to Congress within 15 days of the certification of an act of terrorism, stating whether the Secretary estimates that aggregate insured losses will exceed $100,000,000,000 for the calendar year in which the event occurs. Such initial estimate may be based on insured loss amounts as compiled by insurance industry statistical organizations, data previously collected by the Secretary, and any other information the Secretary in his or her discretion considers appropriate. The Secretary shall also notify Congress if estimated or actual aggregate insured losses exceed $100,000,000,000 during any calendar year.
(a)
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, if Treasury estimates that aggregate insured losses may exceed the cap on annual liability for a calendar year, then Treasury will determine a PRLP. The PRLP applies to insured loss payments by insurers for insured losses incurred in the subject calendar year, as specified in § 50.113, from the effective date of the PRLP, as established by Treasury, until such time as Treasury provides notice that the PRLP is revised. Treasury will determine the PRLP based on the following considerations:
(1) Estimates of insured losses from insurance industry statistical organizations;
(2) Any data calls issued by Treasury (see § 50.114);
(3) Expected reliability and accuracy of insured loss estimates and likelihood that insured loss estimates could increase;
(4) Estimates of insured losses and expenses not included in available statistical reporting;
(5) Such other factors as the Secretary considers important.
(c) Treasury shall provide notice of the determination of the PRLP through publication in the
(d) As appropriate, Treasury will determine any revision to a PRLP based on the same considerations listed in paragraph (b) of this section, and will provide notice for its application to insured loss payments.
(e) If Treasury estimates based on an initial act of terrorism or subsequent act of terrorism within a calendar year that aggregate insured losses may exceed the cap on annual liability, but an appropriate PRLP cannot yet be determined, Treasury will provide notification advising insurers of this circumstance and, after consulting with the relevant state authorities, may initiate the action described in either paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1)
(2)
(ii) In such a circumstance, Treasury will determine a PRLP to replace the interim PRLP as quickly as possible. The PRLP, as later determined, will be effective retroactively as of the effective date of the interim PRLP. Any insured losses submitted in support of an insurer's claim for the Federal share of compensation will be reviewed for the insurer's compliance with
An insurer shall apply the PRLP to determine the
(a) The
(b)
(c)
(d) If an insurer has not yet made payments in excess of its insurer deductible, the rules in this paragraph apply.
(1) If the insurer estimates that it will exceed its insurer deductible making payments based on the application of the PRLP to its insured losses, then the insurer shall apply the PRLP as of the effective date specified in § 50.112(b).
(2)(i) If the insurer estimates that it will not exceed its insurer deductible making payments based on the application of the PRLP to its insured losses, then the insurer may make payments on the same basis as prior to the effective date of the PRLP. The insurer may also make payments on the basis of applying some other
(ii) If an insurer estimates that it will not exceed its insurer deductible and has made payments on the basis provided in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, but thereafter reaches its insurer deductible, then the insurer shall apply the PRLP to any remaining insured losses. When such an insurer submits a claim for the Federal share of compensation, the amount of the insurer's losses will be deemed to be the amount it would have paid if it had applied the PRLP as of the effective date, and the Federal share of compensation will be calculated on that amount. However, an insurer may request an exception if it can demonstrate that its estimate was invalidated as a result of insured losses from a subsequent act of terrorism.
For the purpose of determining initial or recalculated PRLPs, Treasury may issue a data call to insurers for insured loss information, seeking information in addition to any information provided to Treasury under subparts F and H of this part.
(a) Treasury shall determine if, as a final proration, remaining insured loss payments, as well as adjustments to previous insured loss payments, can be made by insurers based on an adjusted PLRP, and aggregate insured losses still remain within the cap on annual liability. In such a circumstance, Treasury will notify insurers as to the final PRLP and its application to insured losses.
(b) If paragraph (a) of this section applies, Treasury may require, as part of the insurer submission for the Federal share of compensation for insured losses, a supplementary explanation regarding how additional payments will be provided on previously settled insured losses.
(c) An insurer that has prorated its insured losses, but that has not met its insurer deductible, remains liable for loss payments that in the aggregate bring the insurer's total insured loss payments up to an amount equal to the lesser of its insured losses without proration or its insurer deductible.
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 |