Page Range | 9081-9329 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
81 FR 9327 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Libya | |
81 FR 9117 - Commercial Zones at International Border With Mexico | |
81 FR 9214 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Public Housing Agency (PHA) 5-Year and Annual Plan | |
81 FR 9215 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Public Housing Capital Fund Program | |
81 FR 9168 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 9168 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Correction | |
81 FR 9197 - KSB Shipping & Logistics LLC v. Direct Container Line aka Vanguard Logistics; Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment | |
81 FR 9197 - Notice of Agreement Filed | |
81 FR 9225 - NASA Advisory Council; Aeronautics Committee Meeting | |
81 FR 9213 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Previous Participation Certification | |
81 FR 9212 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Manufactured Housing Survey | |
81 FR 9203 - Request for Expressions of Interest From Coverage Organizations; Coverage Organizations Interested in Providing Input Regarding Private Payer Coverage to Medical Device Sponsors Who Request Their Participation in a Pre-Submission Meeting With the Food and Drug Administration | |
81 FR 9201 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 9196 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10227, Champion Bank, Creve Coeur, MO | |
81 FR 9122 - Country-by-Country Reporting; Correction | |
81 FR 9169 - Open Meeting of the Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board | |
81 FR 9226 - Human Factors Engineering | |
81 FR 9164 - National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule | |
81 FR 9168 - Foreign-Trade Zone 70-Detroit, Michigan; Application for Reorganization (Expansion of Service Area) Under Alternative Site Framework | |
81 FR 9226 - Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 9109 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atchafalaya River, Morgan City, LA | |
81 FR 9161 - Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues | |
81 FR 9224 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Modification Under the Clean Water Act | |
81 FR 9230 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 9229 - New Postal Product | |
81 FR 9211 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; The Declaration Process: Requests for Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA), Requests for Supplemental Federal Disaster Assistance, Appeals, and Requests for Cost Share Adjustments | |
81 FR 9210 - Technical Mapping Advisory Council Meeting | |
81 FR 9242 - Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Fables Across Time: Kalila and Dimna” Exhibition | |
81 FR 9242 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Gods and Mortals at Olympus: Ancient Dion, City of Zeus” Exhibition | |
81 FR 9225 - Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 9205 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request | |
81 FR 9171 - Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee Meeting | |
81 FR 9196 - Notice of Annual Adjustment of the Cap on Average Total Assets That Defines Community Financial Institutions | |
81 FR 9174 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
81 FR 9159 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 17 to the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan | |
81 FR 9165 - Caribou-Targhee National Forest; Ashton/Island Park Ranger Station; Idaho; Buffalo TSI | |
81 FR 9248 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 9217 - Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory; Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure | |
81 FR 9121 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 630 in the Gulf of Alaska | |
81 FR 9122 - Reauthorization of the United States Grain Standards Act; Extension of Comment Period | |
81 FR 9161 - Board for International Food and Agricultural Development; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 9198 - Availability of Draft Toxicological Profiles; Jet Fuels and 1-Bromopropane | |
81 FR 9105 - Establishment of the Lamorinda Viticultural Area | |
81 FR 9245 - Proposed Information Collections; Comment Request (No. 58) | |
81 FR 9172 - Community Broadband Summit | |
81 FR 9220 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: Chemtos, LLC | |
81 FR 9220 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Insys Therapeutics, Inc. | |
81 FR 9217 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Cayman Chemical Company | |
81 FR 9219 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: Cedarburg Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | |
81 FR 9219 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc. | |
81 FR 9169 - Export Trade Certificate of Review | |
81 FR 9176 - DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 9175 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah | |
81 FR 9176 - Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 9089 - Change of Controlling Agency for Selected Restricted Areas; North Carolina | |
81 FR 9163 - North Central Idaho Resource Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 9162 - Trinity County Resource Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 9163 - Notice of New Fee Sites | |
81 FR 9180 - Notice of Filing | |
81 FR 9179 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725J); Comment Request; Extension | |
81 FR 9182 - Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power System-Primary Frequency Response | |
81 FR 9192 - Notice Revising Post-Technical Conference Comment Schedule | |
81 FR 9182 - Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
81 FR 9193 - West-Wide Must-Offer Requirements; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date | |
81 FR 9177 - Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Leidy South Project | |
81 FR 9178 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
81 FR 9180 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
81 FR 9139 - Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; Withdrawal of Finding and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Liberty Reserve S.A. | |
81 FR 9192 - Billing Procedures for Annual Charges for Recompensing the United States for the Use, Occupancy, and Enjoyment of Federal Lands; Notice of Statement of Annual Charges for the Use of Government Lands for Fiscal Year 2016 | |
81 FR 9180 - Energy Resources USA Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
81 FR 9177 - Energy Resources USA Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
81 FR 9193 - Flambeau Hydro, LLC; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process | |
81 FR 9181 - Platte River Midstream, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
81 FR 9193 - Belliveau, Robert G.; Notice of Filing | |
81 FR 9198 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
81 FR 9200 - Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
81 FR 9216 - Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; Federal Subsistence Regulations and Associated Forms | |
81 FR 9194 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 9197 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
81 FR 9209 - Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee | |
81 FR 9227 - Information Collection: Operators' Licenses | |
81 FR 9228 - Information Collection: Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material | |
81 FR 9167 - National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule | |
81 FR 9173 - Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request | |
81 FR 9090 - Annual Update to Fee Schedule for the Use of Government Lands by Hydropower Licensees | |
81 FR 9242 - Noise Exposure Map Notice for Los Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles, California | |
81 FR 9194 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
81 FR 9235 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Require Registration as Securities Traders of Associated Persons Primarily Responsible for the Design, Development or Significant Modification of Algorithmic Trading Strategies | |
81 FR 9233 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 341A(a)(4) To Provide for Web-Based Delivery of the Exchange's Continuing Education Program | |
81 FR 9231 - Order Granting Limited Exemptions From Exchange Act Rule 10b-17 and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M to WisdomTree Put Write Strategy Fund Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 10b-17(b)(2) and Rules 101(d) and 102(e) of Regulation M | |
81 FR 9202 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Outcomes Evaluation Survey for Graduates of the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner's Fellowship Program | |
81 FR 9208 - National Cancer Institute Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 9206 - National Institute of Mental Health Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 9207 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 9208 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 9209 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Notice of Closed Meeting | |
81 FR 9205 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering: Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 9206 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 9173 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request-Safety Standard for Omnidirectional Citizens Band Base Station Antennas | |
81 FR 9223 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection | |
81 FR 9221 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection | |
81 FR 9222 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection | |
81 FR 9221 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Relief of Disabilities and Application for Restoration of Explosives Privileges (ATF Form 5400.29) | |
81 FR 9224 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Tobacco Inventory Report (ATF Form 5200.25) | |
81 FR 9224 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; National Firearms Act (NFA) Responsible Person Questionnaire (ATF Form 5320.23) | |
81 FR 9170 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits | |
81 FR 9243 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
81 FR 9082 - Federal Reserve Bank Capital Stock | |
81 FR 9114 - Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; GA; Redesignation of the Atlanta, GA, 1997 Annual PM2.5 | |
81 FR 9139 - Special Regulations, Areas of the National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Dog Management | |
81 FR 9081 - Educational Meetings on the Final Rule on Mandatory Inspection of Fish of the Order Siluriformes and Products Derived From Such Fish; Educational Meetings for Importers Inspection | |
81 FR 9151 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Framework Adjustment 27 | |
81 FR 9109 - Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country: Extension of Permitting and Registration Deadlines for True Minor Sources Engaged in Oil and Natural Gas Production in Indian Country | |
81 FR 9123 - Affirmative Action for Individuals With Disabilities in the Federal Government | |
81 FR 9251 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon and Puget Sound Steelhead |
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notification of educational meetings.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing a series of educational meetings to discuss the Final Rule, FSIS Docket No. FSIS-2008-0031, “Mandatory Inspection of Fish of the Order Siluriformes and Products Derived from Such Fish,” as it pertains to importers. The meetings are scheduled for March 2016.
The meetings are scheduled as follows:
• The first meeting will be held in Newark, NJ on Tuesday, March 3, 2016; 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. ET, at the Rutgers University—Newark, School of Public Affairs, The Great Hall, 15 Washington Street, Newark, NJ 07102. For directions and parking instructions please visit:
• The second meeting will be held in Los Angeles, CA on Tuesday, March 17, 2016; 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. PT, at the Hilton Los Angeles Airport, 5711 W. Century Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90045.
• The third meeting will be held in Houston, TX on Tuesday, March 24, 2016; 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. CT, at the Hilton Houston North, 12400 Greenspoint Drive, Houston, TX 77060.
If there is sufficient interest, meetings may also be held in Miami, FL and Norfolk, VA. The objective of the meetings is to provide information to importers on bringing Siluriformes fish and fish products into the United States. Further information on these meetings will be posted on the FSIS Web site at:
Evelyn Gomez, Office of Outreach, Employee Education and Training, (202) 418-8903 or email at
Registration: To pre-register for the meetings, including Miami, FL and Norfolk, VA, please go to
On December 2, 2015 (80 FR 75590), FSIS published the final rule to establish a mandatory inspection program for fish of the order Siluriformes and products derived from these fish. The final regulations implement the provisions of the 2008 and 2014 Farm Bills, which amended the Federal Meat Inspection Act, mandating FSIS inspection of Siluriformes fish and fish products.
On March 1, 2016, the final rule on Siluriformes fish and fish products goes into effect. By this date, foreign countries seeking to continue exporting Siluriformes fish and fish products to the United States during an 18-month transitional period are required to submit documentation showing that they have laws or other legal measures in place that provide authority to regulate the growing and processing of fish for human food and to assure compliance with the United States Department of Health and Human Services' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory requirements in 21 CFR 123, Fish and Fishery Products. The foreign countries are also required to submit lists of establishments that currently export and will continue to export Siluriformes fish and fish products to the United States.
Foreign countries seeking to continue to export Siluriformes fish and fish products to the United States after the transitional period has expired are required to submit to FSIS, by September 1, 2017, adequate documentation showing the equivalence of their Siluriformes inspection systems with that of the United States. Foreign countries submitting such documentation by the deadline are permitted to continue exporting Siluriformes fish and fish products to the United States while FSIS undertakes an evaluation as to equivalency.
The purpose of the educational meetings for importers is to provide information on the final rule's requirements, with a primary focus on the process for importing Siluriformes fish and fish products into the United States during the 18-month transitional period and on the date of full enforcement. Other topics presented will include the labeling requirements for imported Siluriformes fish and fish products, the FSIS sampling of these imported products, and the enforcement of the requirements.
For more information on the mandatory inspection of Siluriformes fish and fish products, visit the FSIS Web site:
Those planning to attend the meetings are invited to pre-register. To pre-register for any of the meetings, including Miami, FL and Norfolk, VA, please go to
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.
Fax: (202) 690-7442.
Email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Interim final rule with request for comment.
The Board of Governors (Board) requests public comment on an interim final rule that amends Regulation I to establish procedures for payment of dividends by the Federal Reserve Banks (Reserve Banks) to implement the provisions of section 32203 of the “Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act.” The interim final rule sets out the dividend rates applicable to Reserve Bank depository institution stockholders and amends provisions of Regulation I regarding treatment of accrued dividends when a Reserve Bank issues or cancels Federal Reserve Bank capital stock.
This interim final rule is effective on February 24, 2016. Comments on the interim final rule must be received on or before April 29, 2016. Comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act burden estimates must be received on or before April 29, 2016.
When submitting comments, please consider submitting your comments by email or fax because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the Board may be subject to delay. You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. R-1533, RIN 7100-AE 47, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Evan Winerman, Counsel (202/872-7578), Legal Division; or Kimberly Zaikov, Financial Project Leader (202/452-2256), Reserve Bank Operations and Payments Systems Division. Users of Telecommunication Device for Deaf (TDD) only, call (202) 263-4869.
Regulation I governs the issuance and cancellation of capital stock by the Reserve Banks. Under section 5 of the Federal Reserve Act
On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed the “Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act” (“FAST Act”).
Prior to the amendments published today, Regulation I did not address the timing of payment of dividends to Federal Reserve Bank stockholders (other than, as discussed below, the payment of
In addition, Regulation I contains provisions with respect to the treatment of accrued dividends when a Reserve Bank issues new stock or cancels existing stock. These Regulation I provisions implement portions of sections 5, 6, and 9 of the Federal Reserve Act, which were not amended by the FAST Act.
The interim final rule amends Regulation I to include a new paragraph, § 209.4(e), addressing the rate for dividend payments by the Reserve Banks. Section 209.4(e)(1)(i) implements the FAST Act provision requiring that banks with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets receive a dividend on their Reserve Bank capital stock at an annual rate of the lesser of six percent and the high yield of the 10-year Treasury note auctioned at the last auction held prior to the payment of the dividend. Section 209.4(e)(1)(ii) provides that banks with $10 billion or less in total consolidated assets will continue to receive a dividend at an annual rate of six percent. Section 209.4(e)(3) provides that dividends are cumulative.
Section 209.4(e)(2) provides that each dividend “will be adjusted to reflect the period from the last dividend payment date to the current dividend payment date according to the dividend proration basis.” Section 209.1(d)(2) in turn defines “dividend proration basis” as “the use of a 360-day year of 12 30-day months for purposes of computing dividend payments.” Thus, under the interim final rule, a semi-annual dividend payment to a stockholder with $10 billion or less in total consolidated assets would continue to be calculated as three percent of paid-in capital. A semi-annual dividend payment to a stockholder with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets would be calculated as the lesser of three percent or one-half of the high yield of the 10-year Treasury note auctioned at the last auction held prior to the payment of the dividend.
As discussed above, section 5 of the Federal Reserve Act provides that, when a stockholder subscribes to new capital stock, it must pay for accrued dividends on that new stock at a monthly rate of one-half of one percent from the last dividend (
Although section 5 of the Federal Reserve Act continues to provide that a stockholder should pay for accrued dividends at a monthly rate of one-half of one percent from the last dividend, section 7 of the Federal Reserve Act now provides that stockholders with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets will receive an annual dividend at the lesser of six percent and the high yield of the 10-year Treasury note auctioned at the last auction held prior to the payment of the dividend. Applying sections 5 and 7 literally could cause a larger stockholder to overpay for accrued dividends if it paid at a rate based on a six percent annual rate but received its next dividend payment at an annual rate
The Board believes that, when a stockholder with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets subscribes to additional Reserve Bank capital stock, the best way to reconcile the conflict between sections 5 and 7 of the Federal Reserve Act is to require the stockholder to pay for accrued dividends at an annual rate of the lesser of six percent and the high yield of the 10-year Treasury note auctioned at the last auction held prior to the previous dividend payment date (that is, the rate used for the previous dividend payment to stockholders with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets), prorated to cover the period between the last dividend payment date and the date of subscription. This approach would allow a larger stockholder to pay for accrued dividends at a rate that is generally close to the dividend rate the stockholder will earn at the next dividend payment. This approach also resolves the statutory conflict in favor of
The interim final rule provides at § 209.4(c)(3) for an adjustment at the next annual dividend if a stockholder pays for accrued dividends at a rate that is different from the annualized rate that the stockholder ultimately receives at the next scheduled dividend payment date. This adjustment would equal the difference between the accrued dividends the stockholder paid for the additional subscription and the portion of the next dividend payment attributable to that additional subscription, prorated to cover the period from the last dividend payment date to the subscription date.
As discussed above, three provisions of the Federal Reserve Act (sections 5, 6, and 9(10)) state that, when a Reserve Bank cancels stock, the Reserve Bank shall pay the stockholder for accrued dividends at a monthly rate of one-half of one percent from the last dividend (
The Board believes that, when a Reserve Bank cancels stock held by a stockholder with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, the best way to reconcile sections 5, 6, and 9(10) of the Federal Reserve Act with section 7 of the Federal Reserve Act is to require the Reserve Bank to pay the stockholder for accrued dividends at an annual rate of the lesser of six percent and the high yield of the 10-year Treasury note auctioned at the last auction held prior to the date of cancellation, prorated to cover the period between the last dividend payment date and the date of cancellation. As noted above, this approach also resolves the statutory conflict between sections 5, 6, and 9(10), on the one hand, and section 7 on the other, in favor of the most recent Congressional act regarding dividends expressed in the FAST Act. Accordingly, the interim final rule adopts this approach in § 209.4(d)(1)(ii)(A). Conversely, § 209.4(d)(1)(ii)(B) provides that, when a Reserve Bank cancels stock of a stockholder with $10 billion or less in total consolidated assets, the Reserve Bank will pay the stockholder for accrued dividends at an annual rate of six percent (prorated to cover the period between the last dividend payment date and the date of cancellation), as those stockholders will continue to receive a six percent annual dividend.
The dividend rate to which a stockholder is entitled under Section 7 of the Federal Reserve Act (as amended by the FAST Act) depends on the stockholder's “total consolidated assets.” The interim final rule amends Regulation I to include a new paragraph, § 209.1(d)(3), that generally defines total consolidated assets by reference to total assets reported on the stockholder's most recent December 31 Consolidated Report of Condition and Income (Call Report).
Section 7(a)(1)(C) of the Federal Reserve Act (added by the FAST Act) requires that the Board make an annual inflation adjustment to the total consolidated asset threshold that determines the dividend rate to which a Reserve Bank is entitled. The interim final rule implements this provision at § 209.4(f). The Board expects to make this adjustment using the final second quarter estimate of the Gross Domestic Product Price Index for each year, published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
This interim final rule is effective immediately. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), notice and comment are not required prior to the issuance of a final rule if an agency, for good cause, finds that “notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”
Consistent with section 553(b)(B) of the APA, the Board finds that there is good cause to issue this rule as an interim final rule because the rule is necessary to provide immediate guidance to the Reserve Banks regarding the issuance and cancellation of stock, which are governed by the provisions of the FAST Act that became effective on January 1, 2016. The Board finds that obtaining notice and comment prior to issuing the interim final rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The Board finds for the same reasons that there is good cause to publish the interim final rule with an immediate effective date.
Although notice and comment are not required prior to the effective date of
In accordance with section 4 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601
The interim final rule implements amended provisions of the Federal Reserve Act providing that Reserve Bank stockholders with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets will receive a dividend at an annual rate equal to the lower of six percent and the high yield of the 10-year Treasury note auctioned at the last auction held prior to the payment of such dividend (with such dividend prorated to cover the period between the last dividend payment date and the current dividend payment date). The interim final rule also provides that, if a Reserve Bank cancels stock of a stockholder with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, the Reserve Bank will pay the stockholder accrued dividends at an annual rate of the lesser of six percent and the high yield of the most recent 10-year Treasury note auction held prior to the date of cancellation, prorated to cover the period between the last dividend payment date and the cancellation date. Finally, the interim final rule provides that, if a Reserve Bank issues new stock to a stockholder with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, the stockholder will pay accrued dividends on such stock at an annual rate of the lesser of six percent and the high yield of the most recent 10-year Treasury note auction held prior to the previous dividend payment date (prorated to cover the period between the last dividend payment date and the subscription date). The next regular dividend payment to that stockholder would be adjusted to account for the difference between the rate at which the stockholder paid for accrued dividends and the rate at which the stockholder receives the regular dividend payment.
Under the interim final rule, Reserve Bank stockholders with $10 billion or less in total consolidated assets will continue to receive a dividend on their Reserve Bank stock at an annual rate of six percent (prorated to cover the period between the last dividend payment and the current dividend payment). If a Reserve Bank issues new stock to, or cancels existing stock of, a stockholder with $10 billion or less in total consolidated assets, the stockholder or the Reserve Bank would (respectively) continue to pay accrued dividends on such stock at an annual rate of six percent (prorated to cover the period between the last dividend payment date and the subscription date or the cancellation date). Additionally, the interim final rule continues to allow Reserve Banks to pay dividends semiannually to all stockholders, including banks with $10 billion or less in total consolidated assets.
The only new requirement that the interim final rule imposes on stockholders with $10 billion or less in total consolidated assets is that such a stockholder must report whether its total consolidated assets exceed $10 billion when the stockholder applies for (1) new capital stock upon joining the Federal Reserve System or (2) additional capital stock upon merging with another entity. Excluding these two situations, a Reserve Bank will determine the total consolidated assets of all stockholders by reference to the stockholder's most recent December 31 Call Report. The interim final rule requires the Board to make an annual inflation adjustment to the $10 billion total consolidated asset threshold.
As noted above, a depository institution is “small” for purposes of the RFA if it has less than $550 million of assets. The only effect of the interim final rule on stockholders with less than $550 million of assets is to require such stockholders to report whether their total consolidated assets exceed $10 billion when they join the Federal Reserve System or merge with another entity. These reporting requirements will have a minimal economic impact on stockholders that are small entities. The Board expects that existing banks and banks that are in the process of organization can readily calculate their total consolidated assets. The Board currently requires that a bank file an application form with the Reserve Bank in whose district it is located if the bank wishes to join the Federal Reserve System or if the bank must increase or decrease its holding of Reserve Bank stock.
The RFA requires a description of any significant alternatives that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities. In this circumstance, there is no feasible alternative to requiring that a bank in the process of organization report whether its total consolidated assets exceed $10 billion when it applies to join the System, because such banks will not have filed a Call Report before applying for membership. With respect to measuring the total consolidated assets of a surviving bank after a merger, the Reserve Banks could alternatively (1) refer to the total assets reported by the surviving bank on its most recent December 31 Call Report or (2) add the total assets of the surviving bank and the nonsurviving bank as reported on each bank's most recent December 31 Call Report. These alternative approaches to measuring total consolidated assets in the merger context would reduce the reporting burden on small entities, but they would not provide timely and accurate notice to a Reserve Bank of whether a merger has caused a surviving bank's total consolidated assets to exceed $10 billion. The Board believes that requiring surviving banks to report whether total consolidated assets exceed $10 billion when they apply for additional capital stock is a minimal reporting burden of an amount that is known by the banks and serves the intent of the FAST Act.
The Board does not believe that the interim final rule duplicates, overlaps, or conflicts with any other Federal rules. In light of the foregoing, the Board does not believe that the interim final rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Nonetheless, the Board seeks
In accordance with section 3512 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) (PRA), the Board may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control numbers are 7100-0042 and 7100-0046. The Board reviewed the interim final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by OMB. The interim final rule contains requirements subject to the PRA. The reporting requirements are found in §§ 209.2(a) and 209.3(d)(3).
Comments are invited on:
a. Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of the information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments on aspects of this notice that may affect reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements and burden estimates should be sent to: Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer by mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503 or by facsimile to 202-395-5806, Attention, Agency Desk Officer.
(1)
(2)
Section 302 of Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act (12 U.S.C. 4802) generally requires that regulations prescribed by Federal banking agencies which impose additional reporting, disclosures or other new requirements on insured depository institutions take effect on the first day of a calendar
The FAST Act amendments to Section 7(a)(1) of the Federal Reserve Act, which will affect the dividend rate that the Reserve Banks pay to stockholders with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, became effective on January 1, 2016. Before April 1, 2016 (the first day of the next calendar quarter), the Reserve Banks may need to issue new stock to (1) a bank that is applying for membership in the Federal Reserve System or (2) a bank that is increasing its holding of Reserve Bank stock following a merger. A Reserve Bank must have a reliable report of such a bank's total consolidated assets before it can issue stock. The Board therefore finds, for good cause, that this interim final rule shall be effective on [insert date of publication].
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act requires the Board to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Board invites your comments on how to make this interim final rule easier to understand. For example:
• Has the Board organized the material to suit your needs? If not, how could this material be better organized?
• Are the requirements in the interim final rule clearly stated? If not, how could the interim final rule be more clearly stated?
• Does the interim final rule contain language or jargon that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the interim final rule easier to understand? If so, what changes to the format would make the interim final rule easier to understand?
• What else could the Board do to make the regulation easier to understand?
Banks and banking, Federal Reserve System, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board will amend Regulation I, 12 CFR part 209, as follows:
12 U.S.C. 12 U.S.C. 222, 248, 282, 286-288, 289, 321, 323, 327-328, and 466.
(a)
(b)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(d)
(2) * * *
(i) The Reserve Bank of the member bank's former District, or of the nonsurviving member bank, shall cancel the bank's shares and transfer the amount paid in for those shares, plus accrued dividends (as specified in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of § 209.4) and subject to paragraph (d)(3) of § 209.4 (or, in the case of a mutual savings bank member not authorized to purchase Federal Reserve Bank stock, the amount of its deposit, adjusted in a like manner), to the Reserve Bank of the bank's new District or of the surviving bank; and
(3)
(c)
(i) One-half of the subscription amount; and
(ii) Accrued dividends equal to the paid-in subscription amount in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section multiplied by—
(A) In the case of a bank with total consolidated assets of more than $10,000,000,000, an annual rate equal to the lesser of the high yield of the 10-year Treasury note auctioned at the last auction held prior to the date of the last dividend payment and 6 percent, adjusted to reflect the period from the last dividend payment date to the subscription date according to the dividend proration basis.
(B) In the case of a bank with total consolidated assets of $10,000,000,000 or less, 6 percent, adjusted to reflect the period from the last dividend payment date to the subscription date according to the dividend proration basis.
(2) Upon payment (and in the case of a national banks in organization or state nonmember bank converting into a national bank, upon authorization or approval by the Comptroller of the Currency), the Reserve Bank shall issue the appropriate number of shares by crediting the bank with the appropriate number of shares on its books. In the case of a mutual savings bank not authorized to purchase Reserve Bank stock, the Reserve Bank will accept the deposit or addition to the deposit in place of issuing shares. The remaining half of the subscription or additional subscription (including subscriptions for deposits or additions to deposits) shall be subject to call by the Board.
(3) If the dividend rate applied at the next scheduled dividend payment date is based on a different annual rate than the rate used to compute the amount of the accrued dividend payment pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the amount of the dividends paid at the next scheduled dividend payment date should be adjusted accordingly. The amount of the adjustment should equal the difference between—
(i) The accrued dividend payment pursuant paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, and
(ii) The result of multiplying the subscription amount paid pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section by the dividend rate applied at the next scheduled dividend payment, adjusted to reflect the period from the last dividend payment date to the subscription date according to the dividend proration basis.
(d)
(i) Reduce the bank's shareholding on the Reserve Bank's books by the number of shares required to be canceled and shall pay the paid-in subscription of the canceled stock; and
(ii) Pay accrued dividends equal to the paid-in subscription of the canceled stock in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section multiplied by—
(A) In the case of a bank with total consolidated assets of more than $10,000,000,000, an annual rate equal to the lesser of the high yield of the 10-year Treasury note auctioned at the last auction held prior to the date of cancellation and 6 percent, adjusted to reflect the period from the last dividend payment date to the cancellation date according to the dividend proration basis; or
(B) In the case of a bank with total consolidated assets of $10,000,000,000 or less, 6 percent, adjusted to reflect the period from the last dividend payment date to the cancellation date according to the dividend proration basis.
(2) The sum of the payments under paragraph (d)(1) of this section cannot exceed the book value of the stock.
(3) In the case of any cancellation of Reserve Bank stock under this Part, the Reserve Bank may first apply such sum to any liability of the bank to the Reserve Bank and pay over the remainder to the bank (or receiver or conservator, as appropriate).
(e)
(i) in the case of a bank with total consolidated assets of more than $10,000,000,000, the lesser of the annual rate equal to the high yield of the 10-year Treasury note auctioned at the last auction held prior to the payment of such dividend and an annual rate of 6 percent, or
(ii) in the case of a bank with total consolidated assets of $10,000,000,000 or less, an annual rate of 6 percent.
(2) The dividend pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) of this section will be adjusted to reflect the period from the last dividend payment date to the current dividend payment date according to the dividend proration basis.
(3) The entitlement to dividends under paragraph (e)(1) of this section shall be cumulative.
(f)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 to update the controlling agency for restricted areas R-5302A, B and C, Albemarle Sound, NC; restricted areas R-5313A, B, C and D, Long Shoal Point, NC; and restricted areas R-5314A, B, C, D, E, F, H and J, Dare County, NC. Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) has delegated controlling agency authority for the above restricted areas to the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry Point, Radar Air Traffic Control Facility (RATCF). There are no changes to the boundaries; designated altitudes; time of designation or activities conducted within the restricted areas.
Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it updates the controlling agency for restricted areas R-5302A, B and C; R-5313A, B, C and D; and R-5314A, B, C, D, E, F, H and J, in North Carolina to promote the efficient use of airspace.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 by changing the controlling agency for restricted areas R-5302A, B and C; R-5313A, B, C and D; and R-5314A, B, C, D, E, F, H and J, in North Carolina, from “FAA, Washington ARTCC” to “MCAS Cherry Point Approach Control.” The change will promote real-time activation and de-activation of the restricted areas and enhance air traffic efficiency in the surrounding area.This change does not affect the boundaries, times of designation, designated altitudes or activities conducted within the restricted areas; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
The FAA has determined that this action only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5d. This action is an administrative modification of the technical descriptions of the affected restricted areas to update the name of the controlling agency. It does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, or times of designation of the restricted areas; therefore, it is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
By removing the current controlling agency and adding in its place:
Controlling agency. USMC, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Approach Control.
By removing the current controlling agency and adding in its place:
Controlling agency. USMC, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Approach Control.
By removing the current controlling agency and adding in its place:
Controlling agency. USMC, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Approach Control.
By removing the current controlling agency and adding in its place:
Controlling agency. USMC, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Approach Control.
By removing the current controlling agency and adding in its place:
Controlling agency. USMC, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Approach Control.
By removing the current controlling agency and adding in its place:
Controlling agency. USMC, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Approach Control.
By removing the current controlling agency and adding in its place:
Controlling agency. USMC, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Approach Control.
By removing the current controlling agency and adding in its place:
Controlling agency. USMC, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Approach Control.
By removing the current controlling agency and adding in its place:
Controlling agency. USMC, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Approach Control.
By removing the current controlling agency and adding in its place:
Controlling agency. USMC, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Approach Control.
By removing the current controlling agency and adding in its place:
Controlling agency. USMC, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Approach Control.
By removing the current controlling agency and adding in its place:
Controlling agency. USMC, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Approach Control.
By removing the current controlling agency and adding in its place:
Controlling agency. USMC, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Approach Control.
By removing the current controlling agency and adding in its place:
Controlling agency. USMC, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Approach Control.
By removing the current controlling agency and adding in its place:
Controlling agency. USMC, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Approach Control.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Final rule.
In accordance with of the Commission's regulations, the Commission, by its designee, the Executive Director, issues this annual update to the fee schedule in Appendix A to Part 11, which lists per-acre rental fees by county (or other geographic area) for use of government lands by hydropower licensees.
This rule is effective February 24, 2016. Updates to Appendix A to Part 11 with the fee schedule of per-acre rental fees by county (or other geographic area) are applicable from October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2015 (Fiscal Year 2016).
Norman Richardson, Financial Management Division, Office of the Executive Director, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6219,
Section 11.2 of the Commission's regulations provides a method for computing reasonable annual charges for recompensing the United States for the use, occupancy, and enjoyment of its lands by hydropower licensees.
This Final Rule is effective February 24, 2016. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 804, regarding Congressional review of final rules, do not apply to this Final Rule because the rule concerns agency procedure and practice and will not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. This Final Rule merely updates the fee schedule published in the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect scheduled adjustments, as provided for in section 11.2 of the Commission's regulations.
Public lands.
By the Executive Director.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 11, Chapter I, Title 18,
16 U.S.C. 792-828c; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Final rule; Treasury decision.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the
This final rule is effective March 25, 2016.
Jesse Longbrake, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 066.
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013 (superseding Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of these provisions.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:
• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;
• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;
• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.
TTB received a petition from Patrick L. Shabram, on behalf of the Lamorinda Wine Growers Association, proposing the establishment of the “Lamorinda” AVA. The proposed Lamorinda AVA is located in Contra Costa County, California, and contains the cities of Lafayette, Moraga, and Orinda. The proposed viticultural area lies in the northeast portion of the established San Francisco Bay AVA (27 CFR 9.157) and also within the larger, multicounty Central Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.75).
The proposed AVA covers approximately 29,369 acres and has 46 commercially-producing vineyards that cover approximately 139 acres. The petition states that the individual vineyards are small, each covering less than 5 acres, due to the hilly terrain and the largely suburban nature of the region. However, three much larger commercial vineyards covering a total of 130 acres are either in the early development or public review stages. There are also six bonded wineries currently within the proposed AVA.
According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Lamorinda AVA are its topography, geology, soils, and climate. The terrain of the proposed AVA is composed of moderate-to-steep hills with narrow valleys. The steep hillsides prevent the use of machinery for vineyard work within the proposed AVA, requiring instead that the work be done by hand. The proposed AVA is suitable for both cool- and warm-climate varietals because the hilly terrain results in disparate levels of sunlight at different elevations. The terrain of the proposed AVA contrasts with the steeper, more rugged terrain to the south and west and the lower, flatter plains to the north and east. Additionally, the proposed Lamorinda AVA is characterized by a distinct suburban land use pattern which tends to provide property owners with enough room to plant vineyards large enough for commercial viticulture. This contrasts with the more urban and densely populated areas to the east and west.
The dominant geological formation of the proposed Lamorinda AVA is the Orinda Formation, while the Briones and Mulholland Formations are also present. These underlying geological formations affect viticulture in the proposed AVA due to their role in forming the soils of the region. Other geographic formations dominate the surrounding area.
The soils of the proposed AVA have high levels of clay attributable to the weathering of the clay-rich Orinda Formation. Typically, clay-rich soils have high water-holding capacities, but within the proposed AVA the thinness of the soils, steepness of terrain, and presence of sand in the soils allow rapid runoff of excess water. These features reduce the risk of vineyard diseases and rot normally associated with soils with high water-holding capacities. In contrast to the clay-rich soils of the proposed AVA, the soils to the west, south, and southeast are characterized by sedimentary and volcanic materials; soils to the north are typically fine-grained bay mud; and soils to the east
Finally, the proposed Lamorinda AVA generally has a warmer climate than the surrounding areas to the north, south, and west. The high ridgelines present to the north and west of the proposed AVA limit the amount of cool marine air and fog that enters the region from San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, and Suisun Bay, resulting in higher growing degree day (GDD)
TTB published Notice No. 151 in the
In Notice No. 151, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the name, boundary, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed Lamorinda AVA's location within the existing San Francisco Bay AVA and the larger, multicounty Central Coast AVA, TTB solicited comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates it from the existing San Francisco Bay AVA and the larger, multicounty Central Coast AVA. Finally, TTB requested comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the surrounding San Francisco Bay AVA and the larger, multicounty Central Coast AVA that the proposed Lamorinda AVA should no longer be part of the established AVAs. The comment period closed June 15, 2015.
In response to Notice No. 151, TTB received a total of 12 comments. Commenters were primarily local residents and members of the wine industry from the Lamorinda region, including vineyard owners, winemakers, and a retail wine shop proprietor. Commenters also included wine industry members from outside of the Lamorinda region who work with Lamorinda-based industry members in various capacities. All of the comments generally supported the establishment of the proposed AVA due to the unique microclimates, soils, and geology of the Lamorinda region. Comments also emphasized the strong sense of community identity and commitment to local wines in Lamorinda, and suggested that the establishment of the Lamorinda AVA will help Lamorinda consumers to identify and buy local wines. Further, some comments noted that because the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs are so large and diverse, they do not necessarily reflect the specific characteristics of Lamorinda grapes and wines, and as a result, establishing the Lamorinda AVA will help wine industry members in the region differentiate themselves from others within the larger AVAs.
The comments did not raise any new issues concerning the proposed Lamorinda AVA, and TTB received no comments opposing its establishment. TTB received one comment (comment 3) in response to its question of whether the proposed Lamorinda AVA is so distinguishable from the established San Francisco Bay AVA and the Central Coast AVA that the proposed AVA should not be part of the established AVAs. While the commenter noted his belief that the proposed AVA's combination of climate, soil, and topography is different from most, if not all, other winegrowing areas in the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs, the commenter supported finalizing the rulemaking as proposed in the interest of the expedient establishment of a Lamorinda AVA.
After careful review of the petition and the comments received in response to Notice No. 151, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the petitioner supports the establishment of the Lamorinda AVA. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and parts 4 and 9 of the TTB regulations, TTB establishes the “Lamorinda” AVA in Contra Costa County, California, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document.
TTB has also determined that the Lamorinda AVA will remain part of the established San Francisco Bay AVA and the larger, multicounty Central Coast AVA. As discussed in Notice No. 151, both the San Francisco Bay AVA and the Lamorinda AVA are characterized by climates heavily influenced by marine air and fog from San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. However, as compared to other portions of the San Francisco Bay AVA, the Lamorinda AVA is more isolated from cool marine air due to the higher surrounding elevations and is also less affected by the heavy diurnal fog that characterizes the more coastal portions of the San Francisco Bay AVA.
Further, as discussed in Notice No. 151, the large, 1 million-acre Central Coast AVA is only distinguished by the fact that all of its included counties experience marine climate influence due to their proximity to the Pacific Ocean. The Lamorinda AVA is located within the Central Coast AVA and, like the larger AVA, experiences mild marine breezes and nocturnal marine fog. However, due to its much smaller size, the proposed AVA has greater uniformity in geographical features such as topography, temperature, and soils, than the larger, multicounty Central Coast AVA.
See the narrative description of the boundary of the Lamorinda AVA in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the regulatory text.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for
With the establishment of this AVA, its name, “Lamorinda,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Lamorinda” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin.
The establishment of the Lamorinda AVA will not affect any existing AVA, and any bottlers using “San Francisco Bay” or “Central Coast” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes grown within the San Francisco Bay AVA or the Central Coast AVA, respectively, will not be affected by the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the Lamorinda AVA will allow vintners to use “Lamorinda”, “San Francisco Bay”, and “Central Coast” as appellations of origin for wines made primarily from grapes grown within the Lamorinda AVA if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.
TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Jesse Longbrake of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this final rule.
Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
(a)
(b)
(1) Walnut Creek, CA, 1995;
(2) Las Trampas Ridge, CA, 1995;
(3) Oakland East, CA, 1997; and
(4) Briones Valley, CA, 1995.
(c)
(1) The beginning point is on Walnut Creek map at the water tank (known locally as the Withers Reservoir) at the end of an unnamed light-duty road known locally as Kim Road, in the Cañada del Hambre y Las Bolsas Land Grant.
(2) From the beginning point, proceed south-southeast in a straight line approximately 0.8 mile to the 833-foot peak marked “Hump 2;” then
(3) Proceed southeast in a straight line approximately 1.7 miles to the marked 781-foot peak south of the shared Lafayette-Walnut Creek corporate boundary line and north of an unnamed light-duty road known locally as Peaceful Lane; then
(4) Proceed southeast in a straight line approximately 0.3 mile to the marked 610-foot peak southwest of an unnamed light-duty road known locally as Secluded Place; then
(5) Proceed south-southwest in a straight line approximately 1.7 miles to an unidentified benchmark at the end of an unnamed unimproved road known locally as Diablo Oaks Way in section 33, T1N/R2W; then
(6) Proceed southeast in a straight line approximately 0.5 mile, crossing onto the Las Trampas map, and continuing another 0.9 mile to the substation at the southeast corner of section 4, T1S/R2W; then
(7) Proceed southeast in a straight line approximately 2.3 miles to the 1,827-foot summit of Las Trampas Peak, section 22, T1S/R2W; then
(8) Proceed south-southeast in a straight line approximately 2.1 miles to the 2,024-foot benchmark marked “Rock 2” in section 26, T1S/R2W; then
(9) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line approximately 2.7 miles to the marked 1,057-foot peak in section 29, T1S/R2W; then
(10) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line approximately 2 miles to the intersection of the 1,000-foot elevation line with the Contra Costa-Alameda County line in section 31, T1S/R2W; then
(11) Proceed northwest in a straight line approximately 0.4 mile, crossing onto the Oakland East map, then continuing another 0.1 mile to the 1,121-foot peak in section 30, T1S/R2W; then
(12) Proceed northwest in a straight line approximately 3.6 miles to the 1,301-foot peak in section 15, T1S/R3W; then
(13) Proceed northwest in a straight line approximately 1.6 miles to the 1,634-foot peak in section 9, T1S/R3W; then
(14) Proceed northwest in a straight line approximately 2.2 miles to the communication tower on the Contra Costa-Alameda County line in section 5, T1S/R3W; then
(15) Proceed north in a straight line approximately 0.1 mile, crossing onto the Briones Valley map, then continuing another 0.6 mile to the 1,905-foot summit of Vollmer Peak in the El Sobrante Land Grant; then
(16) Proceed north-northeast in a straight line approximately 3 miles, crossing over to the 1,027-foot peak in the Boca de la Cañada del Pinole Land Grant, to the Orinda corporate boundary line; then
(17) Proceed generally east along the Orinda corporate boundary line approximately 3.3 miles to the water tank at the 1,142-foot elevation in the Boca de la Cañada del Pinole Land Grant; then
(18) Proceed east-northeast in a straight line approximately 1.2 miles to
(19) Proceed northwest in a straight line approximately 0.8 mile to the 1,405-foot peak in the Boca de la Cañada del Pinole Land Grant; then
(20) Proceed east-northeast in a straight line approximately 0.5 mile, crossing onto the Walnut Creek map, then continuing another 1.1 miles to the beginning point.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Morgan City Railroad Bridge across the Atchafalaya River (also known as Berwick Bay), mile 17.5 [Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (Morgan City-Port Allen Alternate Route), mile 0.3] in Morgan City, St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. This deviation is necessary to perform maintenance needed for the operation of the bridge. This deviation allows for the bridge to remain closed-to-navigation for eight-consecutive hours in the morning and five-consecutive hours in the evening with an opening in the middle to pass vessels for a five-day period.
This deviation is effective from 11 a.m. on March 2 through 9 p.m. on March 6, 2016.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0130] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Donna Gagliano, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard, telephone (504) 671-2128, email
The BNSF Railway requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule of the Morgan City Railroad Bridge. These repairs are necessary for the operation of the bridge. This deviation is to install new Conley joints on the four bases on the east and west ends of the bridges and transition rails on the east and west side of the bridge's north and south sides. The draw currently operates under 33 CFR 117.5.
For the purposes of this deviation, the bridge will not be required to open from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. each day. From 2 p.m. until 4 p.m., the bridge will be opened for the passage of vessels. The bridge will again be closed-to-navigation from 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. From 9 p.m. until 6 a.m. the bridge will be maintained in the open position. The closure will begin at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, March 2, 2016 and continue through 9 p.m. on March 6, 2016.
The vertical clearance of the bridge is 4 feet above mean high water, elevation 8.2 feet NGVD in the closed-to-navigation position and 73 feet above mean high water in open-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists of tugs with tows, oil industry related work and crew boats, commercial fishing vessels and some recreational crafts.
Vessels able to pass the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and the Morgan City-Port Allen Landside route through Amelia, LA can be used as an alternate route. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge, so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35, the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing three final amendments to the “Federal Minor New Source Review (NSR) Program in Indian Country” (we refer to this rule as the “Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule”). We are amending the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule to extend the NSR minor source permitting deadline for true minor sources in the oil and natural gas sector from March 2, 2016, to October 3, 2016. We are also finalizing two amendments to conform the minor source registration deadline to the permitting deadline change.
The final rule is effective on February 24, 2016.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606. All documents in the docket are listed on the
For general questions, please contact Mr. Christopher Stoneman, Outreach and Information Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C304-01), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-0823; fax number (919) 541-0072; email address:
• EPA Region 5 (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and
• EPA Region 6 (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas)—Ms. Bonnie Braganza, Air Permits Section, Multimedia Permitting and Planning Division, Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, Mail Code 6MM, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202; telephone number (214) 665-7340; fax number (214) 665-6762; email address:
• EPA Region 8 (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming)—Ms. Claudia Smith, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202; telephone number (303) 312-6520; fax number (303) 312-6520; email address:
• EPA Region 9 (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and Pacific Islands)—Ms. Lisa Beckham, Permits Office, Air Division, Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, AIR-3, 75 Hawthorn Street, San Francisco, California 94105; telephone number (415) 972-3811; fax number (415) 947-3579; email address:
• All other EPA Regions—Contact the permit reviewer for minor sources in Indian country for your EPA Region. You can find the list of the EPA permit reviewers at:
Entities potentially affected by this final rule include owners and operators of true minor emission sources in all industry groups planning to locate or already located in Indian country. Categories and entities potentially affected by this action are expected to include, but are not limited to, the following:
This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be potentially affected by this action. To determine whether your facility could be affected by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in the final Federal Minor NSR Program in Indian Country (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 49.153), as well as the proposed Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) applicability in 40 CFR 49.101.
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final rule will also be available on the World Wide Web. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this final rule will be posted in the regulations and standards section of our NSR home page located at
In July 2011, the EPA finalized a rule that includes a minor NSR permitting program for sources in Indian country and a major source NSR permitting program for sources in nonattainment areas of Indian country. The minor source part of the permitting program is officially titled the “Federal Minor Source New Source Review Program in Indian Country,” but we generally refer to it as the “Federal Indian Country
Pursuant to section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, the EPA finds that there is good cause to make this final rule effective upon publication in the
On September 18, 2015, the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
Today's final rule promulgates three amendments to the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule. We proposed other regulatory changes in our September 18, 2015, proposal, but are taking final action on only these three amendments.
First, we are revising the deadline under § 49.151(c)(1)(iii)(B) by which new and modified true minor sources in the oil and natural gas sector that are located in (or planning to locate in) reservation areas of Indian country or other areas of Indian country for which tribal jurisdiction has been demonstrated must obtain a minor NSR permit prior to beginning construction. We are extending the deadline from March 2, 2016, to October 3, 2016, for all true minor sources (both new and modified true minor sources and minor modifications at existing major sources) within the oil and natural gas sector located in Indian country.
Second, we are revising § 49.151(c)(1)(iii)(A) to conform the registration deadline to the extended permitting deadline in § 49.151(c)(1)(iii)(B).
Finally, we are revising § 49.160(c)(1)(ii) to conform the registration deadline to the extended permitting deadline in § 49.151(c)(1)(iii)(B).
We received comments from three industry commenters on the permitting deadline extension (and associated registration requirements) in the September 18, 2015, proposed rule. The discussion below provides a summary of the comments, and our responses to those comments, that relate to the changes discussed in Section IV above and that we are addressing in today's final rule. The remaining comments on the September 18, 2015, proposed rule will be addressed in a separate final rulemaking.
Two commenters supported the extension, while the third commenter was concerned that the extension would not provide adequate time to obtain required permits for affected facilities needing site-specific permits. The commenter maintained that turnaround times for site-specific permits typically extend beyond one year, which is a timeframe that would make it impossible to meet the October 3, 2016, deadline. The commenter recommended that an extension of 18 months would be the minimum needed to provide a reasonable assurance that all permits will be issued before the deadline.
The EPA is establishing October 3, 2016, as the revised permitting and registration deadline, and we do not believe that an extension beyond that date is necessary. The commenter has not provided any compelling information to indicate that a further extension is needed. Sources have been able to submit an application for a source-specific permit since the effective date of the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule. Therefore, in determining the length of the extension, we have not regarded as paramount whether the extension provides sufficient time to obtain a site-specific
The proposed FIP would apply to new true minor sources and minor modifications at existing true minor sources in the production segment of the oil and natural gas sector that are locating in or expanding on Indian reservations or in other areas of Indian country over which tribal jurisdiction has been demonstrated. The FIP, if finalized as proposed, would satisfy the minor source permitting requirement under the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule. The FIP proposes to require compliance with emission limitations and other requirements from certain federal emission standards as written at the time of construction or modification for a range of equipment and processes present at oil and natural gas production facilities. If the EPA finalizes the FIP before October 3, 2016, then we would have in place by October 3, 2016, a streamlined permitting option in the form of a FIP for new and modified oil and natural gas minor sources that want to construct or modify in Indian country.
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0003. This action merely extends the deadline for when true minor sources in the oil and natural gas sector locating or located in areas covered by the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country must obtain a site-specific minor source permit prior to commencing construction and register. It does not contain any new information collection activities.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The EPA analyzed the impact of streamlined permitting on small entities in promulgating the Federal Minor Source New Source Review Program in Indian Country (76 FR 38748, July 1, 2011). The EPA determined that that action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action merely implements a particular aspect of the Federal Minor Source New Source Review Program in Indian Country. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
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. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. It simply provides an extension for sources to comply with the Federal Minor Source New Source Review Program in Indian Country. The Federal Minor Source New Source Review Program in Indian Country (and not this action) imposes the obligation that true minor sources in areas covered by the rule obtain a minor source NSR permit. This action merely extends the deadline for meeting that obligation.
This action does not have federalism implications. It would not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The EPA conducted outreach on the September 18, 2015, proposed rule via on-going monthly meetings with tribal environmental professionals. The EPA offered consultation on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that preceded the proposal to elected tribal officials and the following tribes requested a consultation, which was held on July 18, 2014, with the tribes and/or their representatives: MHA (Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara) Nations (Three Affiliated Tribes), Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, and Crow Nation.
At the consultation, the tribes present expressed three main concerns regarding federal regulation of oil and natural gas activity in Indian country. First, the tribes noted that many areas of Indian country are facing difficult economic circumstances and are in need of economic development to improve the quality of life of tribal members; revenue from oil and natural gas activity in many areas provides that economic development. Second, they stated that oil and natural gas activity in Indian country is already regulated by other federal government agencies and that the EPA does not need to add to the burden. The tribes expressed a desire to manage their own resources without undue interference from the federal government. Third, the tribes expressed a need for additional resources so that they can implement their own environmental programs in their lands.
We will continue to provide outreach to tribal environmental professionals and offer to consult with tribal leadership as we further finalize the September 18, 2015, proposed action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. This action implements certain aspects of the Federal Minor Source New Source Review Program in Indian Country.
Our primary goal in developing this program is to ensure that air resources in areas covered by the Federal Minor Source New Source Review Program in Indian Country will be protected in the manner intended by the Clean Air Act (CAA). This action will help facilitate implementation of the Federal Minor Source New Source Review Program in Indian Country and provide the EPA sufficient time to take final action on a proposed FIP with a comprehensive set of control requirements for new and modified true minor sources in the production segment of the oil and natural gas sector. Through the proposed FIP, we seek to establish a mechanism that provides an effective and efficient method for implementing a preconstruction permitting program for true minor sources in areas covered by the Federal Minor Source New Source Review Program in Indian Country, helping promote economic development by minimizing delays in new construction, and providing a process comparable to those programs operated outside of Indian county.
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 District of Columbia Circuit by April 25, 2016. Any such judicial review is limited to only those objections that are raised with reasonable specificity in timely comments. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule 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. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements of this final action may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by us to enforce these requirements.
Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures, Air pollution control, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 49 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) If you own or operate an existing true minor source in Indian country (as defined in § 49.152(d)), you must register your source with the reviewing authority in your area by March 1, 2013. If your true minor source is not an oil and natural gas source, and you commence construction after August 30, 2011, and before September 2, 2014, you must also register your source with the reviewing authority in your area within 90 days after the source begins operation. If your true minor source is an oil and natural gas source, and you commence construction after August 30, 2011, and before October 3, 2016, you must register your source with the reviewing authority in your area within 90 days after the source begins operation. You are exempt from these registration requirements if your true minor source is subject to § 49.138.
(B) If your true minor source is not an oil and natural gas source and you wish to begin construction of a new true minor source or a modification at an existing true minor source on or after September 2, 2014, you must first obtain a permit pursuant to §§ 49.154 and 49.155 (or a general permit/permit by rule pursuant to § 49.156, if applicable). If your true minor source is an oil and natural gas source and you wish to begin construction of a new true minor source or a modification at an existing true minor source on or after October 3, 2016, you must first obtain a permit pursuant to §§ 49.154 and 49.155 (or a general permit/permit by rule pursuant to § 49.156, if applicable). The proposed new source or modification will also be subject to the registration requirements of § 49.160, except for sources that are subject to § 49.138.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) If your true minor source is not an oil and natural gas source and you commence construction after August 30, 2011, and before September 2, 2014, you must register your source with the reviewing authority within 90 days after the source begins operation. If your true minor source is an oil and natural gas source, and you commence construction after August 30, 2011, and before October 3, 2016, you must register your source with the reviewing authority within 90 days after the source begins operation.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
On August 30, 2012, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD), submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the Atlanta, Georgia, fine particulate matter (PM
This rule is effective February 24, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0084. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Joel Huey, 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. Mr. Huey may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9104 or via electronic mail at
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated the first air quality standards for PM
On January 5, 2005, and supplemented on April 14, 2005, EPA designated the Atlanta Area as nonattainment for the 1997 PM
On August 30, 2012, Georgia submitted a request to EPA for redesignation of the Atlanta Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM
Approval of the redesignation request changes the legal designation of the counties in the Atlanta Area, found at 40 CFR 81.311, from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM
EPA is taking three separate final actions regarding Georgia's request to redesignate the Atlanta Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM
EPA is also notifying the public that EPA finds the newly-established NOx and direct PM
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds that there is good cause for this action 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 various requirements for the Atlanta Area. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this action to become effective on the date of publication of this action.
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in the application 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 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 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 these reasons, these actions:
• Are 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);
• do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• are 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
• do 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);
• do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• are not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• are not significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• are 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,
• will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects 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 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 April 25, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Particulate matter.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks.
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Final rule; interim final rule and request for comments.
FMCSA issues a final rule establishing the New Mexico Commercial Zone in Dona Ana County and Luna County, NM. This action is required by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). The Agency also issues an interim final rule establishing an expanded commercial zone for the City of El Paso, TX, which now includes the new Tornillo-Guadalupe international bridge and port of entry on the border with Mexico. Additionally, through this action, FMCSA provides clarification on the definition of the San Luis, AZ commercial zone. The Agency is interested in receiving public comments regarding what should constitute the eastern boundary for the FMCSA's commercial zone for the City of El Paso, TX, that would include the new Tornillo-Guadalupe international bridge, port of entry, and public access roads O.T. Smith Road and Texas Farm-to-Market Road 3380 (M.F. Aguilera Highway) to Interstate Highway 10.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System Docket ID [FMCSA-2015-0372] using any of the following methods:
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
Bryan Price, Chief, North American Borders Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone (202) 680-4831; email
The statutes authorizing FMCSA to regulate certain economic activities of motor carriers provide for several exemptions. One of them, the “commercial zone” exemption, now set out in 49 U.S.C. 13506(b)(1), provides that, except to the extent FMCSA finds it necessary to exercise jurisdiction to carry out the transportation policy of 49 U.S.C. 13101, FMCSA has no jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV, part B
Although the promulgation of a rule to establish a commercial zone would ordinarily involve the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment, the Administrative Procedure Act does permit their omission for good cause, when “notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). In addition, a final rule that is “a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption” may be made effective on less than the 30 days' notice that is usually required. 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
The establishment of the New Mexico Commercial Zone changes is a nondiscretionary ministerial action that can be taken without issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking and receiving public comment, in accordance with the good cause exception available to Federal agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Due to the imminent opening of the Tornillo-Guadalupe port of entry to commercial traffic to and from Mexico, it is critical that motor carriers, drivers, and law enforcement recognize the expanded commercial zone for the City of El Paso. However, the Agency is still interested in receiving public comments related to establishing boundaries specific to this commercial zone. Therefore, this second action is published as an interim final rule also in accordance with the good cause exception available to Federal agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act.
In the 1930s, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) established commercial zones under authority of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935.
When the ICC was dissolved (ICC Termination Act of 1995, Public Law 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, (December 29, 1995)), its remaining authorities to regulate motor carrier transportation were transferred to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as the successor agency. Responsibility for administration of these authorities was later transferred to FMCSA in the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, Public Law 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748 (Dec. 9, 1999).
Section 4031 of Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 419 (June 9, 1998) (TEA-21) provided for the designation of a New Mexico Commercial Zone, comprised of two counties in New Mexico: Dona Ana County and Luna County. The new zone is limited to use by motor carriers of property. There are two border crossings between Mexico and the United States within this commercial zone; Santa Teresa, and Columbus, NM. This new commercial zone went into effect on the date of enactment of the TEA-21 Act, June 9, 1998. However, FHWA did not codify these changes in its regulations at that time.
The responsibilities of the ICC, first transferred to FHWA, were subsequently transferred to FMCSA upon its establishment on January 1, 2000. When FMCSA became aware of the fact that the regulations at 49 CFR part 372, subpart B—Commercial Zones, were not updated to include the New Mexico Commercial Zone comprising these two counties in New Mexico, the Agency included the codification of this commercial zone in the “Unified Registration System” (URS) notice of proposed rulemaking.
FMCSA finds that there is good cause for omitting notice and an opportunity for public comment on the rule codifying the New Mexico Commercial Zone. Notice and comment is unnecessary because TEA-21 established the commercial zone in 1998. In any case, an opportunity for public comment was already provided in the URS rulemaking and no comments were received.
The County of El Paso submitted a Presidential Permit application on April 14, 2003, to the U.S. Department of State for review/approval of a replacement port of entry location for the Fabens-Caseta International Bridge (connecting Fabens, TX to Caseta, Chihuahua, Mexico). The Department of State issued the Presidential Permit on March 16, 2005, for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the bridge pursuant to Executive Order 11423, “Delegation of Functions to Secretary of State Respecting Certain Facilities Constructed and Maintained on United States Borders.”
Presidential Permit 05-01 is titled “Authorizing the County of El Paso, TX, to Construct, Operate, and Maintain an International Bridge, Its Approaches and Facilities, at the International Boundary Between the United States and Mexico.” This permit, with conditions, granted El Paso County the authority to construct, operate, and maintain an international bridge. The permit noted that the name of the bridge was proposed as the “Tornillo-Guadalupe New International Bridge.” The bridge was to be constructed, “approximately 1,950 feet upstream” from the existing Fabens-Caseta International Bridge. The permit specified that, “[T]he proposed Tornillo International Bridge will facilitate passenger vehicles, commercial trucks, and pedestrian traffic.” In June 2011, the General Services Administration (GSA) announced the kick-off of construction of the new port facility, including a six-lane replacement bridge. The scope of this project required GSA to secure Congressional approval of the project's prospectus.
The new bridge and port of entry facilities on both sides of the international border have been completed and were opened to personally owned vehicles and pedestrians on February 4, 2016. The new bridge and port of entry facilities are expected to be opened to commercial traffic in March 2016.
The commercial zone of the City of El Paso is currently defined by the general provisions of 49 CFR 372.239, 372.241 and 372.243 to include the municipality, all municipalities contiguous to the City of El Paso, and all other municipalities and all unincorporated areas that are adjacent to the City of El Paso including, “when the base municipality has a population of 500,000 but less than 1 million [El Paso had a population of 649,121 as of the 2010 census], all unincorporated areas within 15 miles of its corporate limits and all of any other municipality any part of which is within 15 miles of the corporate limits of the base municipality.” 49 CFR 372.241(c)(6). The unincorporated communities of Tornillo, TX, the intersection
As a result, FMCSA must establish a commercial zone for the City of El Paso that clearly includes the new border crossing, which, unlike the current border crossing, will be used by motor carriers of both property and passengers. The expanded commercial zone must also include the intersection of Interstate 10 with O.T. Smith Road and Texas Farm-to-Market Road 3380 so that trucks and buses that have FMCSA authority to operate only within the current El Paso commercial zone may use the new international bridge and
The specific description of the commercial zone for the City of El Paso set out below in new 49 CFR 372.247 includes all of the area presently within the commercial zone under the general rule in 49 CFR 372.241. It adds a provision expanding the zone to include all unincorporated areas within 15 miles of the corporate boundaries of the City of San Elizario. The City of San Elizario (located southeast of the City of El Paso) was incorporated on November 18, 2013, under the general laws of TX and is thus included within the present commercial zone of the City of El Paso because it is within 15 miles of the boundary of the City of El Paso. By expanding the zone to include those unincorporated areas within 15 miles of the boundaries of San Elizario, the new commercial port of entry and the roads and highways providing access to the port of entry will be within the commercial zone of the City of El Paso. This expanded commercial zone
FMCSA seeks comment on whether the boundary of the expanded commercial zone should instead be the eastern boundary
This change will also provide enforcement personnel with the direction needed to determine if motor carriers are operating within the proper commercial zone. In view of the imminent opening of the new port of entry to commercial motor vehicle traffic, FMCSA is establishing this specifically defined commercial zone for the City of El Paso as an interim final rule but, as indicated above, with an opportunity for public comment before the Agency issues a final rule on this commercial zone. FMCSA finds that because of the imminent opening of the expanded port of entry to commercial traffic, it would be in the public interest to issue this interim final rule.
The final rule recognizing the statutory creation of the New Mexico Commercial Zone and the interim final rule establishing the expanded commercial zone for the City of El Paso either recognize or grant an exemption, and therefore are made effective upon publication, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
On October 22, 2014, FMCSA received a letter from the Southwest Arizona Port User Association (SWAPUA) requesting confirmation that the City of Yuma, AZ is included in the commercial zone of San Luis, AZ as a “contiguous municipality” with the city of San Luis, AZ. The San Luis, AZ commercial zone is not one of the named commercial zones in Part 372. However, San Luis is a “municipality” as defined in § 372.239. FMCSA confirmed that the City of San Luis and the City of Yuma have common boundaries and, therefore, are determined to be contiguous. As a result, it is the determination of the FMCSA that the San Luis commercial zone extends throughout the City of Yuma (49 CFR 372.241(b)) and extends 6 air-miles beyond the corporate boundaries of the municipality of San Luis in other areas.
No amendment to existing regulation is needed to address the interpretation requested regarding the Cities of San Luis and Yuma, AZ.
FMCSA has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 18, 2011), or within the meaning of the DOT regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 1103, Feb. 26, 1979). Thus, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not review this document. We expect the final rule and the interim final rule will have no costs, as they exempt motor carriers from obtaining FMCSA operating authority when they operate in interstate or foreign commerce wholly within the New Mexico, or El Paso commercial zones; therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), FMCSA is not required to complete a regulatory flexibility analysis, because, as discussed earlier in the legal basis section, this action is not subject to notice and comment under section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act.
The final rule and interim final rule will not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532,
A rule has implications for Federalism under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government.” FMCSA has determined that this rule will not have substantial direct effects on States, nor will it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts or modifies any provision of State law or regulation, imposes substantial direct unreimbursed compliance costs on any State, or diminishes the power of any State to enforce its own laws. Accordingly, the final rule and the interim final rule do not have Federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132.
The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this final rule and interim final rule.
This final rule and interim final rule do not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 titled, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” because they would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
A final EA has been prepared and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been issued for this action. The final EA and FONSI are also available for inspection or copying in the Regulations.gov Web site at
FMCSA also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)), and implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. None of the alternatives considered in the EA is located in a nonattainment or maintenance area for any of the criteria pollutants; therefore, FMCSA has determined that it is not required to perform a CAA general conformity analysis.
E.O. 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994), Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. The E.O.'s main provision directs Federal agencies to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. FMCSA evaluated the environmental effects of this final rule and interim final rule in accordance with E.O. 12898 and determined that there are no environmental justice issues associated with its provisions, nor any collective environmental impact resulting from its promulgation. None of the alternatives analyzed in the EA will result in high and adverse environmental impacts on minority or low-income populations.
FMCSA has analyzed this final rule and interim final rule under Executive Order 13211, titled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.” The Agency has determined that the rule(s) are not a “significant energy action” under that Executive Order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Executive Order 13045 titled, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), requires agencies issuing “economically significant” rules, if the regulation also concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects on children. As discussed previously, the final rule and interim final rule are not economically significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on children is required.
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 titled, “Civil Justice Reform,” to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
This final rule and interim final rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630 titled, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.”
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note) requires Federal agencies proposing to adopt technical standards to consider whether voluntary consensus standards are available. If the Agency chooses to adopt its own standards in place of existing voluntary consensus standards, it must explain its decision in a separate statement to OMB. Because FMCSA does not intend to adopt technical standards, there is no need to submit a separate statement to OMB on this matter.
Section 522(a)(5) of the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and General Government Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. 108- 447, Division H, Title I, 118 Stat. 2809 at 3268, Dec. 8, 2004) requires DOT and certain other Federal agencies to conduct a privacy impact assessment of each rule that will affect the privacy of individuals. Because this final rule and interim final rule will not affect the privacy of individuals, FMCSA did not conduct a separate privacy impact assessment.
Agricultural commodities, Buses, Cooperatives, Freight forwarders, Motor
For reasons set forth in the preamble, FMCSA amends title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, chapter III, subchapter B, part 372 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 13504 and 13506; Pub. L. 105-178, sec. 4031, 112 Stat. 418; and 49 CFR 1.87.
(a) Transportation within a zone comprised of Dona Ana and Luna Counties, NM, by motor carriers of property, in interstate or foreign commerce, not under common control, management, or arrangement for shipment to or from points beyond such zone is partially exempt from regulation under 49 U.S.C. 13506(b)(1).
(b) To the extent that commercial zones of municipalities within the two counties (as determined under § 372.241) extend beyond the boundaries of this two county zone, the areas of such commercial zones shall be considered to be part of the zone and partially exempted from regulation under 49 U.S.C. 13506(b)(1).
The zone adjacent to, and commercially a part of El Paso, TX, within which transportation of passengers or property by motor carriers in interstate or foreign commerce, not under common control, management, or arrangement for a continuous carriage or shipment to or from a point beyond such zone, is partially exempt from regulation under 49 U.S.C. 13506(b)(1), includes and is comprised of all points as follows:
(a) The municipality of the City of El Paso, TX;
(b) All municipalities which are contiguous to the City of El Paso;
(c) All of any other municipalities and all unincorporated areas within the United States which are adjacent to the City of El Paso as follows:
(1) Within 15 miles of the corporate limits of the City of El Paso; or
(2) Within 15 miles of the corporate limits of the City of San Elizario, TX; and
(d) All municipalities wholly surrounded, or so surrounded except for a water boundary, by the City of El Paso, by any municipality contiguous thereto, or by any municipality adjacent thereto which is included in the commercial zone of the City of El Paso under the provisions of paragraph (c) of this section.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2016 total allowable catch of pollock for Statistical Area 630 in the GOA.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 19, 2016, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., March 10, 2016.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The A season allowance of the 2016 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA is 12,456 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (80 FR 10250, February 25, 2015) and inseason adjustment (81 FR 188, January 5, 2016).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the A season allowance of the 2016 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 11,856 mt and is setting aside the remaining 600 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA.
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of February 17, 2016.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) is extending the comment period for its proposed rule addressing changes to the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA), as amended, in order to comply with amendments to the USGSA made by the Agriculture Reauthorizations Act of 2015.
The comment period for the proposed rule published January 25, 2016 (81 FR 3970), is extended until April 25, 2016.
We invite you to submit comments on this rule. In your comments, please include the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) and the volume, date, and page number of this issue of the
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Mail, hand deliver, or courier to Dexter Thomas, GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2526-S, Washington, DC 20250-3642.
Comments will be available online at
Barry Gomoll, 202-720-8286.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
On January 25, 2016, GIPSA published a proposed rule in the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-109822-15) that was published in the
Written or electronic comments and request for a public hearing for the notice of proposed rulemaking at 80 FR 79795, December 23, 2015, are still being accepted and must be received by March 22, 2016.
Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-109822-15), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-109822-15), Courier's desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Melinda E. Harvey, at (202) 317-6934 (not a toll-free number).
The notice of proposed rulemaking that is the subject of this document is under sections 6001, 6011, 6012, 6031, and 6038 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-109822-15) contains errors that are misleading and are in need of clarification.
Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking that is the subject of FR Doc. 2015-32145, beginning on page 79795 of the issue of December 23, 2015, is corrected as follows:
1. On page 79797, in the first column, under the paragraph heading “
2. On page 79801, second column, in the second line of § 1.6038-4(a), the phrase “provided in paragraph (j) of this section” is corrected to read “provided in paragraph (h) of this section”.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “Commission”) proposes to amend its regulations requiring the federal government to engage in affirmative action for individuals with disabilities. These changes will clarify the obligations that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 imposes on federal agencies as employers, in addition to the obligation not to discriminate on the basis of disability. An initial economic analysis indicates that the regulations will have a moderate economic impact of less than $100 million per year on federal agencies. Because the proposed regulation does not apply to the private sector, it will have no impact, economic or otherwise, on private businesses.
Submit comments on or before April 25, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3046-AA94, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Christopher Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel, (202) 663-4665, or Aaron Konopasky, Senior Attorney-Advisor, (202) 663-4127 (voice), or (202) 663-7026 (TTY), Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (These are not toll free numbers.) Requests for this document in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs at (202) 663-4191 (voice) or (202) 663-4494 (TTY).
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) proposes to amend 29 CFR 1614.203 to clarify the affirmative action obligations that Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 501”)
An initial economic analysis indicates that the proposed regulation may have a one-time initial cost to the federal government of approximately $90,448.20; an annual cost to the federal government of between $11,601,562.56 and $58,732,303.77; and an annual economic benefit to the federal government of between $3,514,752.00 and $6,397.947.00. The rule is also expected to have a variety of non-monetizable qualitative and dignitary benefits for individuals with disabilities and individuals with targeted disabilities.
Section 501 requires federal agencies to establish an affirmative action program for the hiring, placement, and advancement of individuals with disabilities.
First, affirmative action requires that agencies not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. Section 501 provides that the standards used to determine whether a federal agency has discriminated against an individual with a disability “shall be the standards applied under title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 . . . and the provisions of sections 501 through 504, and 510, of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 . . . as such sections relate to employment.”
Second, affirmative action requires each federal agency to maintain, update annually, and submit to the Commission an “affirmative action program plan for the hiring, placement, and advancement of individuals with disabilities,” and further directs the Commission to approve a plan if “the Commission determines . . . that such plan provides sufficient assurances, procedures and commitments to provide adequate hiring, placement, and advancement opportunities for individuals with disabilities.”
The regulations currently implementing this Section 501 requirement simply state that the federal government shall be a “model employer of individuals with disabilities,” and instruct federal agencies to “give full consideration to the hiring, placement, and advancement of qualified individuals with disabilities.”
In 1987, the Commission issued Management Directive 713, setting the standards by which the Commission would judge an agency's Plan with regard to the hiring of people with disabilities.
In 2003, the EEOC issued Management Directive 715 (“MD-715”), which superseded MD-713.
In addition to MD-715, there are a number of Executive Orders, as well as guidance and policy documents implementing such Executive Orders, that overlap with MD-715 and guide the affirmative action efforts of federal agencies with regard to the hiring and advancement of people with disabilities.
President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 13163 on July 26, 2000 “to support the goals articulated in section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.”
In July 2010, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13548, again setting a goal of having the federal government hire 100,000 persons with disabilities within five years.
On May 15, 2014, the Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPRM”) requesting public comment on specific inquiries regarding potential ways to strengthen its Section 501 affirmative action regulations.
A total of 89 comments were received,
Of the 89 comments, 80 were generally supportive of the Commission's proposal to amend its Section 501 regulations and included at least one suggestion for what should be included in the rule. Only 2 of the comments were generally negative (1 from an individual and 1 from a government entity), and 7 were nonresponsive (6 from individuals, and 1 from an advocacy group).
This NPRM proposes to amend 29 CFR 1614.203 to update, clarify, and put in one place the standards the Commission will use to review and approve affirmative action plans developed by agencies pursuant to Section 501. The proposed rule was informed and significantly shaped by all of the comments received. Following final promulgation of this regulation, EEOC will reconcile this regulation's reporting requirements with existing obligations under MD-715 to ensure that agencies do not engage in duplicative efforts and reporting. The rule would not have retroactive effect.
The NPRM also modifies the goals for hiring people with disabilities in the federal government that are currently set forth by MD-715 and Executive Order 13548 in one respect: The proposed rule would require agencies to take specific steps that are reasonably designed to gradually increase the number of employees with disabilities as defined under Section 501, and the number of employees with targeted disabilities as defined in SF-256, until they meet specific goals set by the EEOC. This is consistent with the approach taken by the Department of Labor in regulations issued to implement the obligation of federal contractors pursuant to Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Finally, the NPRM adds a requirement that an agency's Plan include the provision of personal assistants to employees who, because of their disabilities, require such assistance in order to be at work or go on work-related travel. Personal assistance services (PAS) assist employees with disabilities with eating, drinking, using the restroom, and putting on and taking off clothing as needed to allow them to participate in the workforce. Such services do not, however, include medical care, and do not have to be provided by someone who has medical training or qualifications.
For many individuals with targeted disabilities, such as paralysis or cerebral palsy, full participation in the workplace is impossible without such services. Lack of PAS in the workplace and/or the fear of losing PAS provided by means-tested assistance programs are stubborn and persistent barriers to employment for individuals with certain significant disabilities. Although providing an additional person to assist an employee with a disability to perform his or her job duties may fall under an agency's nondiscrimination obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation (for example, hiring a sign language interpreter), an agency is not required to hire a personal assistant to perform PAS as part of its reasonable accommodation obligation. The NPRM therefore places this obligation on agencies through the affirmative action requirement of Section 501.
However, the Commission has determined that the requirement to provide PAS should be subject to an undue hardship defense, the same limitation on the obligation to provide reasonable accommodations as a matter of nondiscrimination.
Each requirement of the proposed rule is discussed in the detailed Section-by-Section Analysis below, and relevant comments are discussed within each section.
Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule provides definitions of key terms. None of the definitions are novel. Many of the defined terms are simple abbreviations: (a)(1) Provides that “ADA” refers to those portions of the ADA that are enforced by the Commission;
Paragraph (a)(2) clarifies that, for purposes of the regulation, “disability” has the same meaning that it does under the ADA and Section 501.
Paragraph (a)(3) provides that the term “hiring authority that takes disability into account” means any hiring authority that permits an agency to consider disability status in the selection of individuals for employment, and provides examples of such, including the Section A hiring authority for persons with certain disabilities; the Veterans' Recruitment Appointment authority, as set forth at 5 CFR part 307; and the 30% or More Disabled Veteran authority, as set forth at 5 CFR 316.302(b)(4), 316.402(b)(4).
Paragraph (a)(7) defines the term “targeted/severe disability” to mean a disability specifically designated as “targeted/severe” in SF-256. Under the definitions set forth in this paragraph, the term “targeted disabilities” is defined more narrowly than “disabilities”; individuals with targeted disabilities are a subset of individuals who have disabilities as defined under Section 501.
Paragraph (a)(8) defines “undue hardship” as having the same meaning as set forth in 29 CFR part 1630.
This paragraph states that Section 501 prohibits disability discrimination in employment, and that the standards used to determine whether an agency has violated the prohibition against discrimination are those applied under the ADA. The paragraph reminds agencies that discrimination on the basis of disability is prohibited in all aspects of employment, including hiring, advancement or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
This paragraph is taken directly from 29 CFR 1614.203(a) of the existing regulations. Other than redesignating the paragraph as 1614.203(c), the proposed rule makes no changes to the paragraph.
This paragraph sets forth the requirements that an agency's affirmative action plan must meet in order to provide “sufficient assurances, procedures, and commitments to provide adequate hiring, placement, and advancement opportunities for individuals with disabilities.”
A strong majority of commenters stated that the rule should require agencies to improve their outreach and recruitment efforts. Many of these commenters made specific suggestions, for example, that agencies should be required to develop programs and resources that may be used to identify qualified job applicants with disabilities who may be hired using the Schedule A hiring authority for persons with certain disabilities before a position is advertised, or establish and maintain contacts with disability organizations. Paragraph (d)(1)(i) incorporates these suggestions, and provides examples of ways in which an agency could meet this requirement.
A large number of commenters stated that the rule should require federal agencies to make certain information available to job applicants and potential job applicants with disabilities, including information about how to request a reasonable accommodation and how to apply for appointment to a position under noncompetitive disability-related hiring authorities. Paragraph (d)(1)(ii) addresses this concern. It also requires agencies to ensure there is appropriate staff to respond to all disability-related issues relating to the application and placement processes, including questions about reasonable accommodation and appointment under hiring authorities that take disability into account.
Paragraph (d)(1) also addresses the common concern that hiring officials should be given accurate information regarding reasonable accommodation and the appropriate use of hiring authorities that take disability into account. The paragraph requires that the agency provide necessary reasonable accommodations to job applicants with disabilities; accept applications for appointment under hiring authorities that take disability into account; determine eligibility for such appointment; forward applications from eligible individuals to the relevant hiring managers, and ensure that these managers know how and when they may appoint such individuals, consistent with all applicable laws.
Many commenters stated that agencies should be required to develop and implement advancement programs for current employees with disabilities, for example by taking steps to ensure that employees with disabilities are enrolled in management training when eligible; developing a mentoring program for employees with disabilities; or administering exit interviews that include questions on how the agency could improve the recruitment, hiring, inclusion, and advancement of individuals with disabilities. Paragraph (d)(1)(iv) adopts this suggestion.
Some common suggestions were not incorporated into the rule, however. The proposed rule does not modify the competitive service hiring process by, for example, awarding additional “points” to candidates with disabilities, adopting preferences, reserving certain positions for individuals with disabilities, or requiring agencies to interview all qualified candidates with disabilities.
Some commenters stated that agencies should be required to state specifically in their anti-harassment policies that harassment based on disability is prohibited. This paragraph adopts this suggestion.
Many commenters stated that agencies should be required to have written reasonable accommodation procedures. Executive Order 13164 has required agencies to have such
Some commenters stated that the rule should require agencies to establish a “centralized fund” to pay for required reasonable accommodations. The purpose of the suggested requirement is to ensure that sufficient funds are available for more costly accommodations, when necessary. Under MD-715, agencies are asked to report whether they use a centralized fund for purposes of providing reasonable accommodations across the agency.
Paragraph (d)(3)(ii) addresses the commenters' underlying concerns by requiring agencies to inform all employees who are authorized to grant or deny requests for reasonable accommodation that, under the “undue hardship” standard set forth by Section 501's nondiscrimination requirement, all available resources are considered when determining whether a denial of reasonable accommodation based on cost is appropriate. In addition, the agency should ensure that relevant decision-makers are informed about various external resources that may be used to fund reasonable accommodations, including, for example, a centralized fund specifically created by the agency for providing reasonable accommodations, the Department of Defense Computer and Electronic Accommodations Program (“CAP”),
Other commenters stated that the rule should place further restrictions, in addition to those that already apply under 29 CFR part 1630, on the amount of medical information an agency may request to support a request for reasonable accommodation. Under current anti-discrimination standards, an agency cannot require supporting medical documentation if the existence of a disability and the need for accommodation are obvious, and can require no more than is necessary to establish the existence of a disability and the need for accommodation.
Many commenters stated that greater compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section 508”)
The Commission has not been given authority by Congress to issue or amend substantive regulations implementing Section 508 or the ABA, or to engage in or strengthen federal agencies' enforcement of those laws.
However, paragraph (d)(4) is intended to ensure that federal employees with disabilities have the information they need to utilize existing enforcement and compliance mechanisms. The paragraph requires agencies to provide all employees with contact information for the employees inside the agency who are responsible for ensuring compliance with these laws, and with clear instructions on how to file complaints under existing rules. It also requires agencies to assist employees in filing a complaint with another federal agency, where investigation shows that such other entity is responsible for the alleged violation.
Personal services allowing employees to participate in the workplace may include assistance with eating, drinking, using the restroom, and putting on and taking off clothing. For many individuals with targeted disabilities such as paralysis or cerebral palsy, full participation in the workplace is impossible without such services. The lack of PAS in the workplace and/or the fear of losing personal services provided by means-tested assistance programs are stubborn and persistent barriers to employment for individuals with certain significant disabilities.
The nondiscrimination standards set forth under the ADA in 29 CFR part 1630, and incorporated into Section 501, already require agencies to provide certain job-related services to an individual with a disability as a reasonable accommodation if doing so enables the individual to apply for a job, perform job functions, or enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment, so long as the provision of such services does not impose an undue hardship on the agency. For example, an agency may be required to provide sign language
The provision of other personal services needed on the job, however, such as assistance with eating or using the restroom, is not considered a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, and therefore is not considered a reasonable accommodation for purposes of the nondiscrimination requirements of Section 501.
Paragraph (d)(5) also clarifies that agencies can fulfill the PAS requirement by hiring persons who perform both PAS and additional tasks, including provision of professional services and other duties, as time permits. The agency can also require a person hired as a personal assistant to perform PAS for more than one individual with a disability. Thus, an agency might be able to satisfy this requirement by, for example, hiring a pool of personal assistants (either solely for assistance tasks or for assistance tasks and other professional services) throughout the agency or at a particular location.
A majority of commenters stated that agencies should be required to adopt employment goals for individuals with disabilities. Some commenters also stated that agencies should be required to adopt separate goals for individuals with disabilities in the higher ranks of the civil service.
Since 1987, federal agencies have been required by the EEOC to set numerical objectives (goals) for the number of people with targeted disabilities employed in their workforces and report that data annually to the Commission.
Paragraph (d)(7) sets forth the goals that the EEOC expects federal agencies to be able to achieve, based on current federal employment data. First, an affirmative action plan should adopt the goal of achieving a 12% representation rate for people with disabilities as defined by Section 501 at both the GS-11 level
The 12% goals established in paragraph (d)(7) are based, in part, on historical data on the employment of persons with disabilities in the federal workforce compiled by OPM. OPM data show that the federal government, viewed as a whole, has already reached a representation rate of 12% at both the GS-10 level and below and the GS-11 level and above.
It should be noted that the OPM data are based on persons who either self-identify as a person with a disability or are veterans with a disability rating of 30% or higher. These figures likely undercount the number of persons with disabilities as defined by Section 501 who are employed or available to be employed by the federal government—in the Commission's final rule implementing changes made by the ADAAA, the Commission estimated that as many as 60 million individuals, or approximately 24% of the eligible workforce, had ADA qualifying disabilities.
The sub-goal for targeted disabilities is also based, in part, on historical data from OPM. Individuals with targeted disabilities currently make up 1.91% of
As with the data on the percentage of persons with disabilities in the federal workforce, there is reason to believe that these figures undercount the number of persons with targeted disabilities employed or available to be employed by the federal government. The American Community Survey (“ACS”), administered by the U.S. Census Bureau, asks a series of questions related to disability such as whether, due to a physical, mental, or emotional problem, the person has serious difficulty hearing, seeing (even with glasses), remembering, concentrating, or making decisions, walking or climbing stairs, bathing or dressing, and/or doing errands alone.
Despite data suggesting that utilization goals higher than those proposed in paragraph (d)(7) for all disabilities and targeted disabilities could be justified, the Commission elects to establish targets that are in line with, but slightly above, historic utilization patterns in the federal government. The goals in paragraph (d)(7) are aggressive in comparison with those imposed on federal contractors by the regulations implementing Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act
Paragraph (d)(7) further states that the utilization goals for persons with disabilities and for persons with targeted disabilities will be assessed both above and below the GS-10 level, including SES. This was done for two reasons. First, OPM employment data show that individuals with disabilities are disproportionately represented at lower levels of employment within the federal government. In fiscal year 2014, the representation rate of individuals with disabilities at the GS-11 level and above was roughly 30% lower than their representation rate at the GS-10 level and below, and the representation rate of individuals with targeted disabilities was almost 60% lower at the GS-11 level and above.
Second, the Commission does not wish to see a rise in the representation of individuals with disabilities as defined by Section 501 at higher levels of employment be accompanied by a corresponding fall in their representation rate at lower levels. As a result, the proposed rule also requires agencies to adopt the goal of achieving a 12% representation rate for individuals with disabilities as defined by Section 501 and a 2% representation rate for individuals with targeted disabilities as defined by SF-256 at the GS-10 level and below.
Paragraph (d)(6) requires agencies to perform the workforce analysis necessary to determine whether these goals set forth in paragraph (d)(7) have been met. The paragraph clarifies that the analysis must be performed on an annual basis, and that it may classify individuals as having disabilities or targeted disabilities on the basis of records relating to self-identification via SF-256, appointment of individuals under noncompetitive disability-related hiring authorities, and requests for reasonable accommodation. This workforce analysis is largely consistent with what is currently required under MD-715.
The Commission recognizes that there are many reasons why it may take some agencies more time than others to meet the utilization goals, such as budgetary constraints (including hiring freezes), the number of additional individuals with targeted disabilities that would have to be hired to achieve the goals, and the nature of certain jobs within an agency's workforce that may include valid physical standards that individuals with certain disabilities may not be able to meet. The rule therefore does not specify a timeframe for achieving the goals. Rather, the rule requires each agency to create and submit a Plan that includes specific steps reasonably designed to gradually increase the number of employees with disabilities and targeted disabilities, with the objective of achieving the goals established pursuant to paragraph (d)(7)(i) of this section. Paragraph (d)(7)(ii) provides examples of such steps, including increased use of hiring authorities that take disability into account, additional outreach and recruitment efforts, disability-related training for all employees, and adoption of training, internship, and mentoring programs for individuals with disabilities. The rule explicitly provides that the Commission will not disapprove a Plan solely because the agency has failed to meet a goal.
Although Section 501 generally prohibits employers from asking questions about whether an applicant has a disability before making a job offer, there are still a number of ways that agencies may learn about a particular applicant's disability. First, the applicant may choose to disclose his or her disability, or the disability may
This paragraph sets forth the recordkeeping requirements imposed by the rule, and directs agencies to make the required records available to the Commission upon request. The required records are necessary for an agency to determine whether it is providing “adequate hiring, placement, and advancement opportunities for individuals with disabilities,” as required under Section 501. Specifically, the rule requires that each agency keep a record of: (1) The number of individuals with disabilities and the number of individuals with targeted disabilities who apply for employment; (2) the number of individuals with disabilities and the number of individuals with targeted disabilities that the agency hires; (3) the number of adverse actions the agency takes based on medical information, including rescissions of conditional job offers; and (4) details regarding all requests for reasonable accommodation the agency receives.
A significant number of commenters stated that the rule should require agencies to track the careers of individuals who are appointed under the Schedule A hiring authority for persons with certain disabilities, to ensure that they are appropriately converted to a career or career-conditional appointments in the competitive service and promoted. The paragraph adopts this suggestion, and, accordingly, requires agencies to keep records of the date of hire, entering grade level, probationary status, and current grade level of each employee hired under that authority, as well as the number of such employees converted to the competitive service each year.
This paragraph sets forth the reporting requirements imposed by the rule. As provided under Section 501,
Paragraph (1) provides that the Commission will approve a Plan if it determines that the Plan, as implemented, meets the requirements set forth in paragraph (d) of this section. Paragraph (2) provides that the Commission will disapprove a Plan if it determines that the Plan, as implemented, does not meet those requirements. The paragraph further clarifies that failure to achieve a goal set forth in proposed paragraph (d)(8)(i), by itself, is not grounds for disapproval unless the Plan fails to require the agency to take specific steps that are reasonably designed to achieve the goal.
The Commission invites comments on all aspects of the proposed regulation. In addition, it invites comments on the following specific issues.
As discussed above, agencies are not required to provide PAS, such as assistance with eating or using the restroom, under the reasonable accommodation standards set forth in 29 CFR part 1630. The unavailability of PAS, however, is a significant hindrance to the employment of persons with certain targeted disabilities. Paragraph (d)(6) addresses this concern by requiring agencies to provide PAS to employees with disabilities as part of the agencies' affirmative action obligations under Section 501. To ensure that the Commission's final decision whether to include this requirement is based on a sound record, the Commission invites responses to the following questions:
1. Should Section 501 regulations require agencies to provide PAS to employees who need them because of a disability while they are on the job or on job-related travel as part of the affirmative action obligation? Do the services described in the regulations accurately capture the PAS that a person with a disability might require?
2. If the rule should require agencies to provide PAS, should assistants be assigned to a particular individual, or should they respond to requests for PAS by different individuals, as needed? Should the agency be allowed to assign non-PAS tasks to assistants when no personal assistance is required?
3. The proposed rule does not address how the obligation to provide PAS would be enforced. The Commission is requiring that agencies provide PAS as part of their affirmative action obligations under Section 501. Affirmative action obligations, such as employment goals or advancement plans, are not generally enforceable through the part 1614 process. The requirement to provide PAS is unlike most general affirmative action obligations, however, as an agency's failure to comply with this obligation will directly harm specific, identifiable individuals. The Commission invites comments on (a) whether the Commission should enforce the PAS requirement in the manner envisioned in paragraph (f) of the proposed rule, or instead offer a process through which individuals denied PAS can request that the Commission review agency denials and order relief to persons wrongly denied those services.
4. Is the Commission's estimate of the costs associated with a PAS requirement, discussed in the regulatory procedures section below, accurate? If not, what is a more accurate estimate? Would particular agencies, or types of agencies, experience significant logistical difficulties in complying with the PAS requirement? What is a realistic estimate of costs arising from offering a process for enforcement of the obligation to provide PAS? Please include supporting references.
The Commission also invites responses to the following general questions regarding the proposed rule:
5. EEOC is interested in learning from the public what would be appropriate minimum standards for federal agencies regarding goals for hiring of persons with disabilities. As proposed, the goals for representation rates have been set at 12% for individuals with all disabilities and 2% for individuals with targeted disabilities. Are these levels appropriate? What data exists that show
6. EEOC is interested in whether agencies should maintain a file or database of individuals who have been determined to be eligible for appointment under a hiring authority that takes disability into account, but who have not been hired by the agency. EEOC is interested in whether such individuals should be asked whether they wish to be included in such a database, or whether the database should be created automatically from those who apply via a hiring authority that takes disability into account.
7. EEOC requests comments from the public on any of the standards proposed in this rule governing affirmative action with respect to the hiring, advancement, and retention of federal employees with disabilities. This includes the PAS requirement, the utilization analysis and goals provision, and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements. It also includes the affirmative action requirements related to reasonable accommodations. EEOC requests any data or evidence that shows that these standards are either too strict or too lenient and any information on the costs and benefits related to each standard.
This proposed rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the proposed rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its cost (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); to tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives; and to select, from among alternative regulatory approaches, including the alternative of not regulating, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to submit a regulatory impact analysis for those regulatory actions that are “economically significant” within the meaning of section 3(f)(1).
Currently, guidance on the federal government's obligation to engage in affirmative action for individuals with disabilities is scattered throughout a number of overlapping Executive Orders,
The proposed rule is necessary to ensure that federal agencies' affirmative action obligations are in a regulation, rather than merely in management directives and sub-regulatory guidance, so that the obligations will have the force of law. Moreover, by compiling federal agencies' affirmative action obligations in one place, rather than in a range of documents, none of which are comprehensive, the proposed rule would provide agencies with easy access to the necessary information, thereby facilitating increased compliance.
The Commission has determined that the proposed rule will have an annual effect of less than $100 million on federal agencies, including both estimated costs and estimated savings arising from the rule, based on the high estimate of projected costs. In addition, the rule is expected to result in one-time compliance costs for agencies of approximately $90,448.20, and have a variety of positive qualitative and dignitary benefits. The Commission's economic impact analysis is presented immediately below.
Many of the proposed requirements will have no economic effect, because they will impose no new requirements or burdens on federal agencies—
• Paragraph (a), which sets forth definitions of key terms, imposes no requirements.
• Paragraph (b), which provides that Section 501 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, and that the standards for determining whether Section 501 has been violated in a complaint alleging employment discrimination are the same standards applied under the ADA, merely revises paragraph (b) in the current regulations for clarity.
• Paragraph (c), which requires agencies to be model employers of individuals with disabilities, is identical to paragraph (a) of the current regulations.
• The requirement to adopt an affirmative action plan, in paragraph (d) of the proposed rule, is imposed by Section 501.
• Paragraphs (d)(1)(i), which requires outreach, and (d)(1)(iii), which requires agencies to take steps to ensure that individuals with disabilities have sufficient advancement opportunities, impose no new annual burden on agencies because they provide guidance on how to fulfill existing requirements, rather than impose new ones.
• The requirements of paragraph (d)(3)(i), which requires written reasonable accommodation procedures, and paragraph (d)(3)(iii), which requires agencies to provide individuals who have been denied a reasonable accommodation with written notice of the reasons for the denial, are taken from MD-715, Executive Order 13164, and existing agency guidance.
• The recordkeeping requirements of paragraph (d)(8), with the exception of (d)(8)(iii) and (d)(8)(iv) (discussed below), are taken from MD-715.
• The requirement to submit an Affirmative Action Plan to the Commission for approval on an annual basis, found in (e)(1), is imposed by Section 501.
Other requirements of the proposed rule will impose no new burdens on federal agencies because they codify aspects of the existing MD-715 and program review processes. MD-715 requires agencies to conduct annual internal reviews of their policies, practices, and procedures to determine whether they provide sufficient employment opportunities to qualified applicants and employees with disabilities, especially those with targeted disabilities. As part of this analysis, agencies must determine the numerical representation and distribution of applicants and employees with disabilities and targeted disabilities.
Many of these requirements are reflected in the proposed rule. Paragraph (d)(6) reaffirms that agencies are required to gather distribution data in order to assess whether individuals with disabilities and individuals with targeted disabilities are being given sufficient employment opportunities and paragraph (d)(7)(ii) reaffirms that additional steps must be taken, as appropriate, to address statistical disparities.
The following aspects of the rule, all of which require agencies to make certain information more readily available, may impose one-time compliance costs on federal agencies:
• Paragraph (d)(2) requires agencies to clarify in their harassment policies that disability-based harassment is prohibited;
• (d)(3)(ii) requires agencies to inform all employees who are authorized to grant or deny requests for reasonable accommodation about reasonable accommodation funding;
• (d)(4) requires agencies to make certain contact information available to employees; and
• (e)(2) requires agencies to make their Affirmative Action Plans available to the public.
Other aspects of the proposed rule will impose recurring or ongoing costs on federal agencies.
Paragraph (d)(1)(ii) requires agencies to ensure that staff are available to perform certain tasks. We provide both a high and a low estimate of the annual costs associated with this requirement. To calculate the high estimate, we assume that each covered agency will need to hire at least one new employee to perform the required tasks, at the GS-14 step 5 level, in the Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA region. The compensation rate for a government employee at this level, adjusted to include benefits, is $173,011.00 per year.
To calculate the low estimate, we note that almost all federal agencies already employ personnel who provide these services. For example, agencies already employ 229 Disability Program Managers (“DPMs”) or Selective Placement Program Coordinators (“SPPCs”) (who perform, among other things, certain tasks of a DPM),
Based on the two calculations above, the Commission estimates that paragraph (d)(1)(ii) will result in recurring annual costs of between approximately $3,034,680.00 at the low end and $37,716,398.00 at the high end.
Paragraph (d)(7)(i), which requires agencies to adopt specific goals for employment of individuals with all disabilities and individuals with targeted disabilities, is likely to impose recurring or ongoing costs on federal agencies in three respects.
First, to determine whether the goals have been met, agencies will need to determine—
• the percentage of employees at the GS-11 level or above, including SES, who are individuals with disabilities;
• the percentage of employees at the GS-11 level or above, including SES,
• the percentage of employees at the GS-10 level or below who are individuals with disabilities; and
• the percentage of employees at the GS-10 level or below who are individuals with targeted disabilities.
Second, because paragraph (d)(7)(i) encourages federal agencies to hire individuals with disabilities, it may impose ongoing costs by increasing the number of federal employees who need a reasonable accommodation.
We first consider the number of additional employees who will need a reasonable accommodation. Because research shows that the federal government as a whole has already achieved a representation rate of 12% for people with disabilities as defined by Section 501 both at the GS-10 level and below and at the GS-11 level and above,
However, the federal government will need to hire additional individuals with targeted disabilities to meet the 2% goals at the GS-10 level and below and at the GS-11 level and above.
We next consider the cost of the required accommodations. Although many accommodations have no financial cost,
Third, again because paragraph (d)(7)(i) encourages the hiring of individuals with disabilities, it may impose ongoing costs arising from the obligation to provide PAS to new employees under paragraph (d)(5) of the proposed rule. The Commission estimates that between 1.1% and 2.0% of the estimated 10,765 additional federal employees, or between 118 and 215 individuals, will require PAS to function in the workplace.
However, there is very little research on which to base an estimate of the difference between the need for personal assistance services at work among individuals who are currently employed and individuals who are unemployed but seeking work. The Commission is only aware of one study, conducted in 2003, that partially addressed this issue. That study found that approximately 7.7% of employed individuals with disabilities reported difficulty with self-care, while approximately 8.6% of individuals with disabilities who were unemployed and seeking work reported such difficulty.
To calculate the low estimate, we assume that the agency will hire personal assistants on a contract basis,
To calculate the high estimate, we assume that the agency will hire the personal assistant at the GS-5 step 5 level, in the Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA region. The annual compensation rate for such an employee, adjusted to include benefits, is $64,581.97.
In addition, some existing federal employees may receive PAS from federal agencies as a result of the rule. The Commission is not aware of any existing data concerning the number of such employees, and is not aware of any means of determining that number short of surveying the entire federal workforce. The Commission is aware of one 2003 study measuring the number of employed individuals who require personal services at work because of a disability.
In practice, however, the Commission suspects that the number of existing federal employees who would receive PAS as a result of this rule is close to zero. Individuals who require PAS because of a disability typically cannot work, because once an individual begins to earn an income the cost of the required assistance is shifted away from the public benefit system and onto the individual. One study has found that an individual would need to earn approximately $40,000.00 per year simply to offset the accompanying loss of benefits.
Nevertheless, because the Commission lacks any other source of data on the issue, we estimate for purposes of this economic analysis that 1.1% of existing federal employees with targeted disabilities will be given PAS by their employing agencies as a result of the proposed rule.
We are aware that at least 16 current federal employees are already being provided PAS at the agency's expense. Because provision of PAS to these individuals would not represent new costs to these agencies, we exclude these individuals from the analysis, which leaves 153 individuals who will receive PAS from their employing agencies as a result of the rule. Multiplying that number by the low estimate of the associated costs as calculated above ($21,008.00) yields an estimated cost of $3,214,224.00. Multiplying by the high estimate of associated costs ($64,581.97) yields an estimated cost of $9,881,041.41.
Based on the calculations above, we conclude that the PAS requirement will have a total cost of between $5,693,168.00 and $23,766,164.96 per year.
Paragraphs (d)(8)(iii) and (d)(8)(iv) require agencies to keep records of all agency employees hired under the Schedule A hiring authority for persons with certain disabilities, to calculate the number of such employees who have been converted to career or career-conditional appointment, and to calculate the number of such employees who have been terminated prior to conversion. The Commission estimates that it will take agencies 2 hours to gather the required data, to perform the required calculations, and to create and maintain the associated records, on an annual basis. Multiplying by the number of agencies covered by the rule yields a total of 436 burden hours. We assume that these tasks will be performed by an employee at the GS-14 step 5 level in the Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA region, at an hourly rate of $82.98 per hour (adjusted to include benefits).
In addition to imposing costs, the Commission expects the proposed rule to have positive economic effects. By bringing a greater number of individuals with disabilities into the workforce, the rule will reduce dependence on government benefits.
In addition to its economic effects, the proposed rule is expected to have a variety of qualitative and dignitary benefits, all of which further values identified in Executive Order 13563 such as equity, human dignity, and fairness. Most significantly, the rule will increase the number of hiring and advancement opportunities available to individuals with disabilities by making them better aware of federal job openings. Research demonstrates that employment is an important determinant of both perceived quality of life and health status among individuals with disabilities.
• Promotion of human dignity and self-respect, and diminished feelings of exclusion and humiliation;
• reduced prevalence of disability-based stereotypes and associated stigma;
• increased diversity, understanding, and fairness in the workplace; and
• improved interactions with coworkers and workplace morale.
The rule is also expected to prevent disability-based employment discrimination by making job applicants, employees, and agency management better aware of the protections against discrimination provided by Section 501.
In summary, the Commission estimates that the rule as a whole will have a one-time initial cost to the federal government of approximately $90,448.20; an annual cost to the federal government of between $14,182,706.56 and $66,937,421.52; and an annual economic benefit to the federal government of between $3,240,162.00 and $5,903,685.00. The rule is also expected to have a variety of non-monetizable qualitative and dignitary benefits for individuals with disabilities and individuals with targeted disabilities.
The Commission certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because it applies exclusively to employees and agencies of the federal government. For this reason, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
This final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This action pertains to agency management, personnel and organization and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties and, accordingly, is not a “rule” as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.
Administrative practice and procedure, Age discrimination, Equal employment opportunity, Government employees, Individuals with disabilities, Race discrimination, Religious discrimination, Sex discrimination.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission proposes to amend 29 CFR part 1614 as follows:
29 U.S.C. 206(d), 633a, 791 and 794a; 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16 and 2000FF-6(e); E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218; E.O. 11222, 3 CFR, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 11478, 3 CFR, 1969 Comp., p. 133; E.O. 12106, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 263; Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 321.
(a)
(1) The term
(2) The term
(3) The term
(4) The term
(5) The term
(6) The term
(7) The term
(8) The term
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(A) Use of programs and resources that may be used to identify job applicants with disabilities who are eligible to be appointed under a hiring authority that takes disability into account, consistent with applicable OPM regulations, examples of which could include training programs for individuals with disabilities that lead directly to employment or that provide the qualifications necessary for particular positions within the agency, and databases of potential job applicants with disabilities; and
(B) Establishing and maintaining contacts with organizations specializing in the placement of individuals with disabilities, including, for example, American Job Centers, State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies, the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program, Centers for Independent Living, and Employment Network service providers.
(ii)
(A) Ensuring that disability-related questions from members of the public regarding the agency's placement process are answered promptly and correctly, including questions about reasonable accommodations needed by job applicants during the application and placement processes, and questions about how individuals may apply for appointment under a hiring authority that takes disability into account;
(B) Processing requests for reasonable accommodations needed by job applicants during the application and placement processes, and ensuring that the agency provides such accommodations when required to do so under the standards set forth in part 1630 of this chapter;
(C) Accepting applications for appointment under hiring authorities that take disability into account, consistent with applicable OPM regulations;
(D) Determining whether individuals who have applied for appointment under a hiring authority that takes disability into account are eligible for appointment under that authority;
(E) If an individual has applied for appointment to a particular position under a hiring authority that takes disability into account and is eligible for appointment under such authority, forwarding the individual's application to the relevant hiring officials, and explaining to those officials how and when they may appoint the individual, consistent with all applicable laws;
(F) Overseeing any other agency programs designed to increase hiring of individuals with disabilities.
(iii)
(A) Efforts to ensure that employees with disabilities are informed of and have opportunities to enroll in relevant training, including management training when eligible;
(B) Development or maintenance of a mentoring program for employees with disabilities; and
(C) Administration of exit interviews that include questions on how the agency could improve the recruitment, hiring, inclusion, and advancement of individuals with disabilities.
(2)
(3)
(A) Explain relevant terms such as “reasonable accommodation,” “disability,” “interactive process,” “qualified,” and “undue hardship,” consistent with applicable statutory and regulatory definitions, using examples where appropriate;
(B) Provide that reassignment to a position for which an employee is qualified, and not just permission to compete for such position, will be considered as a reasonable accommodation if the agency determines that no other reasonable accommodation will permit the employee with a disability to perform the essential functions of his or her current position, and notify supervisors and other relevant agency employees about how and where to conduct a search for available vacancies when reassignment is being considered;
(C) Explain that an individual may request a reasonable accommodation orally or in writing at any time, that an individual need not have a particular accommodation in mind before making a request, and that the request may be made to a supervisor or manager in the individual's chain of command, the office designated by the agency to oversee the reasonable accommodation process, any agency employee connected with the application process, or any other individual designated by the agency to accept such requests;
(D) Include any forms the agency uses in connection with a reasonable accommodation request as attachments, and indicate that such forms are available in alternative formats that are accessible to people with disabilities;
(E) Describe the agency's process for determining whether to provide a reasonable accommodation, including a description of the interactive process, and the individual from whom requestors will receive a final decision;
(F) Provide guidance to supervisors on how to recognize requests for reasonable accommodation;
(G) Require that decision makers communicate, early in the interactive process, with individuals who have requested a reasonable accommodation;
(H) Explain that the agency may require an individual who requests a reasonable accommodation to provide medical information that is sufficient to explain the nature of the individual's disability, his or her need for reasonable accommodation, and how the requested accommodation, if any, will assist the individual to apply for a job, perform the essential functions of a job, or enjoy the benefits and privileges of the workplace;
(I) Explain the agency's right to request relevant supplemental medical information if the information submitted by the requestor is insufficient;
(J) Explain the agency's right to have medical information reviewed by a medical expert of the agency's choosing at the agency's expense;
(K) Explain the agency's obligation to keep medical information confidential, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and the limited circumstances under which such information may be disclosed;
(L) Designate the maximum amount of time the agency has, absent extenuating circumstances, to either provide a requested accommodation or deny the request, explain that the time limit begins to run when the accommodation is first requested, and explain that, where a particular reasonable accommodation can be provided in less than the maximum amount of time allowed, failure to respond to a request in a prompt manner may result in a violation of the Rehabilitation Act;
(M) Provide for expedited processing of requests for reasonable accommodations that are needed sooner than the maximum allowable time frame permitted under paragraph (d)(3)(i)(L) of this section;
(N) Explain that, where a reasonable accommodation cannot be provided immediately, the agency must provide an interim accommodation whenever possible;
(O) Inform applicants and employees how they may track the processing of requests for reasonable accommodation;
(P) Explain that, where there is a delay in either processing a request for, or providing, a reasonable accommodation, the agency must notify the individual of the reason for the delay;
(Q) Explain that individuals who have been denied reasonable accommodations have the right to file complaints in the Equal Employment Opportunity process and other statutory processes, as appropriate;
(R) Encourage the use of voluntary informal dispute resolution processes that individuals may use to obtain prompt reconsideration of denied requests for reasonable accommodation;
(S) Provide that the agency shall give the requestor a notice consistent with the requirements of paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of this section at the time a requested accommodation is denied; and
(T) Provide information on how to access, at a minimum, Commission guidance and technical assistance documents.
(ii)
(iii)
(A) Explains the reasons for the denial and notifies the job applicant or employee of any available internal appeal or dispute resolution processes;
(B) Informs the job applicant or employee of the right to challenge the denial by filing a complaint of discrimination under this part;
(C) Explains that such complaint must be filed within 45 days of the denial regardless of whether the individual participates in an informal dispute resolution process; and
(D) Provides instructions on how to file such a complaint.
(4)
(ii)
(iii)
(5)
(6)
(ii) For purposes of the analysis required under paragraph (d)(6)(i) of this section, employees may be classified as individuals with disabilities or individuals with a targeted/severe disability on the basis of—
(A) Self-identification records gathered in the manner prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management;
(B) Records acquired during the course of appointments made under hiring authorities that take disability into account; and
(C) Records of requests for reasonable accommodation.
(iii)
(7)
(A) No less than 12% of its employees at the GS-11 level or above, including employees in the Senior Executive Service, are individuals with disabilities;
(B) No less than 12% of its employees at the GS-10 level or below are individuals with disabilities;
(C) No less than 2% of its employees at the GS-11 level or above, including employees in the Senior Executive Service, are individuals with targeted/severe disabilities; and
(D) No less than 2% of its employees at the GS-10 level or below are individuals with targeted/severe disabilities.
(ii)
(A) Increased use of hiring authorities that take disability into account to hire or promote individuals with disabilities or targeted/severe disabilities, as applicable;
(B) To the extent permitted by applicable laws, consideration of disability or targeted/severe disability status as a positive factor in hiring, promotion, or assignment decisions;
(C) Disability-related training and education campaigns for all employees in the agency;
(D) Additional outreach or recruitment efforts; and
(E) Adoption of training, mentoring, or internship programs for individuals with disabilities.
(8)
(i) The number of job applications received from individuals with disabilities and the number of individuals with disabilities who were hired by the agency;
(ii) The number of job applications received from individuals with targeted/severe disabilities and the number of individuals with targeted/severe disabilities who were hired by the agency;
(iii) All rescissions of conditional job offers, demotions, and terminations taken against applicants or employees as a result of medical examinations or inquiries;
(iv) All agency employees hired under the Schedule A hiring authority for persons with certain disabilities, and each such employee's date of hire, entering grade level, probationary status, and current grade level;
(v) The number of employees appointed under the Schedule A hiring authority for persons with certain disabilities who have been converted to career or career-conditional appointments in the competitive service each year, and the number of such employees who were terminated prior to being converted to a career or career-conditional appointment in the competitive service each year; and
(vi) Details about each request for reasonable accommodation including, at a minimum—
(A) The specific reasonable accommodation requested, if any;
(B) The job (occupational series, grade level, and agency component) sought by the requesting applicant or held by the requesting employee;
(C) Whether the accommodation was needed to apply for a job, perform the essential functions of a job, or enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment;
(D) Whether the request was granted (which may include an accommodation different from the one requested) or denied;
(E) The identity of the deciding official;
(F) If denied, the basis for such denial; and
(G) The number of days taken to process the request.
(e)
(i) A copy of its current Plan;
(ii) The results of the two most recent workforce analyses performed pursuant to paragraph (d)(6) of this section;
(iii) The number of individuals appointed to positions within the agency under the Schedule A hiring authority for persons with certain disabilities during the previous year, and the total number of employees whose employment at the agency began by appointment under the Schedule A hiring authority for persons with certain disabilities; and
(iv) A list of any changes made to the Plan since the prior submission, if any, and an explanation of why those changes were made.
(2)
(f)
(2)
For the Commission.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), Treasury.
Withdrawal of finding and notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document withdraws FinCEN's finding that Liberty Reserve S.A. (“Liberty Reserve”) is a financial institution of primary money laundering concern and the related notice of proposed rulemaking seeking to impose the fifth special measure regarding Liberty Reserve, pursuant to section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act (“Section 311”). Because of material subsequent developments that have mitigated the money laundering risks associated with Liberty Reserve, FinCEN has determined that Liberty Reserve is no longer a primary money laundering concern that warrants the implementation of a special measure under Section 311.
The finding and notice of proposed rulemaking are withdrawn as of February 24, 2016.
The FinCEN Resource Center at (800) 767-2825.
On October 26, 2001, the President signed into law the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56 (the “USA PATRIOT Act”). Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act amends the anti-money laundering provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, and 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314, 5316-5332, to promote the prevention, detection, and prosecution of international money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Regulations implementing the BSA appear at 31 CFR chapter X. The authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to administer the BSA and its implementing regulations has been delegated to the Director of FinCEN.
Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act (“Section 311”) grants the Director of FinCEN the authority, upon finding that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that a foreign jurisdiction, foreign financial institution, class of transactions, or type of account is of “primary money laundering concern,” to require domestic financial institutions and financial agencies to take certain “special measures” to address the primary money laundering concern. The special measures enumerated under Section 311 are prophylactic safeguards that defend the U.S. financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing. FinCEN may impose one or more of these special measures in order to protect the U.S. financial system from these threats. To that end, special measures one through four, codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(1) through (4), impose additional recordkeeping, information collection, and information reporting requirements on covered U.S. financial institutions. The fifth special measure, codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(5), allows the Director to prohibit or impose conditions on the opening or maintaining of correspondent or payable-through accounts for the identified institution by U.S. financial institutions.
Based upon review and analysis of relevant information, consultations with relevant Federal agencies and departments, and after consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 311, the Director of FinCEN found that reasonable grounds existed for concluding that Liberty Reserve S.A. (“Liberty Reserve”) was a financial institution of primary money laundering concern. FinCEN published a proposed rule proposing the imposition of the fifth special measure on June 6, 2013, pursuant to the authority under 31 U.S.C. 5318A.
Since FinCEN's finding and related NPRM regarding Liberty Reserve, material facts regarding the circumstances of the proposed rulemaking have changed. Liberty Reserve was a web-based money transfer system when FinCEN published notice of its finding and NPRM on June 6, 2013. The Department of Justice announced on May 28, 2013 that it had charged seven of Liberty Reserve's principals and employees with money-laundering, seized five domain names, including “LibertyReserve.com,” and seized or restricted the activity of 45 bank accounts related to Liberty Reserve. In light of these actions, Liberty Reserve has since ceased to function as a financial institution.
For the reasons set forth above, FinCEN hereby withdraws its finding that Liberty Reserve is of primary money laundering concern and the related NPRM published on June 6, 2013, seeking to impose the fifth special measure regarding Liberty Reserve.
National Park Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
The National Park Service proposes to amend its special regulations for Golden Gate National Recreation Area regarding dog walking. The rule would apply to 22 locations within the park and would designate areas within these locations for on-leash and regulated (
Comments must be received by 11:59 EST on April 25, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1024-AE16, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please see the Public Participation section under
Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Attn: Public Affairs Office (Alexandra Picavet), Fort Mason, Building 201, San Francisco, CA, 94123. Phone: (415) 561-4728. Email:
It is the policy of the Department of the Interior, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. The NPS initiated the rulemaking process in 2002 and then convened a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee in 2006. The committee, which was comprised of representatives of multiple stakeholder groups, met over the course of sixteen months in an effort to reach consensus on a dog walking rule for GGNRA. Although the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee was unable to reach consensus on all issues, it did reach consensus on some issues. These limited areas of consensus and input gained from committee discussions were carried forward for analysis as the park developed the range of alternatives in the draft Plan/SEIS.
In addition to that effort, and in accordance with the policy of the Department of the Interior to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process, interested persons may submit written comments regarding this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
Please note that all submissions received must include the agency name and (RIN) 1024-AE16 for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without change to
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. Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Please make your comments as specific as possible and explain the basis for them.
The National Park Service (NPS) manages the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA or park) as a unit of the National Park System. Units of the National Park System are managed under the statutes commonly known as the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, the General Authorities Act of 1970, and the Redwood Amendments of 1978 which amended the General Authorities Act (codified at 54 U.S.C. 100101
An additional source of legal authority for the management of GGNRA derives from the park's enabling legislation, which was enacted in 1972 when Congress created the GGNRA. The enabling legislation states that the GGNRA was established “to preserve for public use and enjoyment certain areas of Marin and San Francisco Counties, California, possessing outstanding natural, historic, scenic, and recreational values, and in order to provide for the maintenance of needed recreational open space necessary to urban environment and planning . . . .” (16 U.S.C. 460bb). The enabling act directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the NPS, to “utilize the resources in a manner which will provide for recreation and educational opportunities consistent with sound principles of land use planning and management,” and to “preserve the recreation area, as far as possible, in its natural setting, and protect it from development and uses which would destroy the scenic beauty and natural character of the area.” (16 U.S.C. 460bb).
GGNRA is one of the most highly-visited units of the National Park System, with over 17.7 million visitors per year. The park is comprised of numerous federally-managed sites interspersed with lands managed by city, county, state, and regional agencies as well as private lands. GGNRA-managed lands include 29.2 miles of bay and ocean shoreline within three counties of the San Francisco Bay Area: San Francisco, Marin, and San Mateo. The park contains significant historical and natural resources: 711 historic structures, including five National Historic Landmarks and 15 National Register properties; 47 registered archeological sites; nine cultural landscapes, including five lighthouses; 3,968 plant and animal species, including 37 federally-listed threatened and endangered species (the 3rd largest number of federally listed species in the National Park System); and 19 separate ecosystems in seven distinct watersheds. Many of these species were listed as threatened or endangered well after the park's establishment.
Since GGNRA was established in 1972, the amount of land managed by the NPS has more than doubled as a result of acquisitions and boundary expansions. The park boundary now encompasses approximately 80,000 acres in San Francisco, Marin, and San Mateo counties. Of that total acreage, the NPS owns and manages approximately 18,500 acres.
Dog walking in some areas of GGNRA began prior to the establishment of the park, when dog walking, including off-leash dog walking, occurred informally at sites under the jurisdiction of other federal, state, or local entities or when the lands were privately owned. In the park's early years, those practices continued largely uninterrupted, despite the existence of a National Park System-wide regulation that prohibited off-leash dog walking and required all pets to be on-leash or under physical restrictive control (36 CFR 2.8, promulgated in 1966) or crated, caged, restrained on-leash, or otherwise physically controlled at all times (36 CFR 2.15, promulgated in 1983).
In 1978, the GGNRA Citizens' Advisory Commission, which was established under the park's enabling legislation to coordinate public involvement for the park, considered and proposed a pet policy following input from park staff and the public. The policy provided general guidance on dog walking and recommended certain locations in the park for on-leash and off-leash, or “voice control,” dog walking, and some locations that would exclude dogs. In 1979, the Commission recommended the pet policy to the superintendent for adoption as a GGNRA-specific policy (later known as the 1979 Pet Policy). Although the NPS never promulgated this policy as a special regulation, for more than 20 years the park operated under it despite the National Park System-wide regulation prohibiting off-leash dog walking.
Since 1979, the San Francisco Bay Area population and overall use of GGNRA lands have increased, as have the number of dog walkers in the park based on park staff observation, partly due to the recent growth of the commercial dog walking industry. At the same time, the number of dog-related conflicts between park users with and without dogs has risen, including dog bites and attacks, as has the concern about the effect of uncontrolled dog behaviors on park visitor experiences. Resource concerns have also increased since 1979 as park staff gained greater knowledge of park resources and as a result of the listing of several species with habitat in areas used by dog walkers as threatened, endangered, or special-status species. The NPS has also identified other native plant and animal species that require protection under the NPS's broader conservation mandate.
A resource protection conflict between dog use and a listed species occurred in the late 1990s when the NPS sought to close 12 acres at Fort Funston to dogs in order to protect bank swallows (
Additional legal challenges to the NPS's management of dog walking occurred in the early 2000s. In January 2002, the NPS issued a
Another recent modification to dog walking in GGNRA is reflected in an interim public use restriction and permit requirement that NPS adopted in June 2014 for commercial dog walkers. Commercial dog walkers who use GGNRA lands in Marin and San Francisco counties are now limited to no more than 6 dogs at any one time, and they must obtain a permit from NPS when walking between four (4) and six (6) dogs at any one time. This interim restriction was adopted by GGNRA following limits placed on dog walkers in surrounding jurisdictions. [See link:
Today, many parts of the San Francisco Bay Area are highly urbanized, and some city, county, and state lands in the San Francisco Bay Area have either limited areas available for dog walking or prohibit dog walking on their lands altogether. Some residents of San Francisco, Marin, and San Mateo counties view GGNRA lands as their backyards. Some local residents with dogs find park lands convenient and have come to expect them to be available for dog walking. These same GGNRA lands, especially the coastal sites, are also popular with a variety of park visitors who seek to experience the national park free from dogs. Within the overarching mandate to protect park resources and values, the proposed rule addresses the interests of these diverse users by designating areas that are appropriate for on- or off-leash dog walking, by adopting restrictions on dog use in other areas such as limitations on the number of dogs, and by closing areas that are not appropriate for dog use.
In 2002, the NPS issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking asking for public input on whether the NPS should develop a new regulation for dog walking in GGNRA. Following review of public comments, the NPS initiated a dog management planning process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), together with a Negotiated Rulemaking process in an effort to develop a consensus-based proposed rule. After meeting for a 16 month period, the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, comprised of representative stakeholders, was unable to reach consensus on a proposed rule and elected not to extend its charter. The NPS decided to continue the dog management planning process under NEPA and its associated public involvement process and through the traditional notice and comment rulemaking process.
The NPS released the draft Dog Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for public comment in 2011.The resulting public comments, and the addition of a major new tract of land to the park (Rancho Corral de Tierra), prompted the NPS to issue an updated draft plan and supplemental EIS (draft Plan/SEIS). The draft Plan/SEIS was open for public comment from September 6, 2013 until February 18, 2014. The draft Plan/SEIS is available online at
The proposed rule is based on the preferred alternative (Alternative F) described in the draft Plan/SEIS, which has been modified slightly based on public comment and further analyses. In general, the principal changes relate to conditions for walking four to six dogs under an NPS permit, the adjustment of two Voice and Sight Control Areas (Crissy Airfield and upper Fort Funston), the addition of four new trail segments for on-leash dog walking (Rancho Corral de Tierra), and the elimination of one (Fort Baker), clarifying definitions, and additional considerations for the Monitoring and Management Program. These specific changes are incorporated in this proposed rule and will be included in the Preferred Alternative in the Final Dog Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. The proposed rule uses updated and corrected trail and road names that are different than the names used in the draft/SEIS. To reduce confusion, the changes to trail and road names are posted on the park Web site at
The 22 locations covered by the proposed rule are as follows by County:
•
•
•
Within the locations listed above, the proposed rule would designate specific areas where dogs would be required to stay on leash, where dogs may be off-leash but only when under immediate voice and sight control, and where dog walking would be prohibited. Maps of trails, beaches, and other areas open to dog walking would be available at park visitor centers and on the park Web site once a final rule is issued. Maps for this proposed rule are available online at
The proposed rule provides for on-leash and off-leash dog walking opportunities within these locations in a manner that is consistent with NPS's legal mandates to conserve park resources and values and provide for recreational and educational opportunities. The rule is consistent with sound principles of land use planning and management, and preserves the park's natural setting and protects it from uses that could destroy its scenic beauty and natural character. Limitations and restrictions on dog walking in these locations are designed to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on park resources, promote health and safety, reduce conflicts between diverse user groups, and address management responsibilities.
Under 36 CFR 1.2(c), special regulations for an NPS unit may modify or relax regulations in 36 CFR part 2 that apply to the entire National Park System. The proposed rule would modify and, in some circumstances, relax the National Park System-wide pet regulations at 36 CFR 2.15 for the locations listed above. To the extent not modified or relaxed by this rule, the National Park System-wide pet regulations at 36 CFR 2.15 would continue to apply to pets, including dogs, within GGNRA. Within GGNRA's 22 park locations identified in this rule, the following subsections of 36 CFR 2.15 would still apply: subsections (a)(1), (a)(4), (c), (d), (e) and (f).
The proposed rule would authorize areas open to on-leash or off-leash dog walking to be closed or subject to additional restrictions, on a temporary or permanent basis, for the protection or restoration of park resources, special events, implementation of management responsibilities, health and safety, infrastructure projects, visitor use conflicts, or other factors within the discretion of the superintendent.
There are two scenarios under which dog walking opportunities may be expanded under the proposed rule. First, if the state and local entities with land management authority for Sharp Park Beach in San Mateo County (see Mori Point map #17) decide to change
For GGNRA locations not addressed by this rule, including lands in the northern district of the park managed by the Point Reyes National Seashore, 36 CFR 2.15 would still apply.
The proposed rule also would not change the rules relating to dog walking on lands, known as Area B, managed by the Presidio Trust. Dog walking on lands managed by the Presidio Trust is managed in accordance with the Trust's regulations in 36 CFR part 1001 and an Interim Final Rule regarding commercial dog walking that went into effect on October 1, 2014. The Interim Final Rule requires commercial dog walkers with four to six dogs to obtain and comply with an NPS permit when walking dogs in Area B and prohibits commercial dog walkers from having more than six dogs at one time. (See:
The following elements would apply to all of the locations within GGNRA that would be governed by the proposed rule:
• Dog walking would be prohibited except in the specific areas or on the trails identified in the proposed rule. Dog walking would not be allowed off-trail, in campgrounds, on designated swimming beaches, on informal (
• Dog walking on-leash would be allowed in parking lots, on sidewalks, and on shoulders of paved, public roads.
• All dogs would be required to have a
• All dogs would be required to be licensed and tagged in accordance with applicable ordinances of the county where the dog's owner resides.
• Each dog walker would be required to have the dog owner's name, home address, and phone number available for each dog walked and must provide this information upon request to any person authorized to enforce the regulation.
• No more than three dogs may be walked per dog walker at one time without a permit. All dog walkers walking between four and six dogs must obtain an NPS permit. (An example of the 2015 interim permit for commercial dog walkers is available at:
• No more than six dogs may be walked per dog walker at any one time.
• Commercial dog walking is allowed in areas open to dog walking according to the rules in this proposed rule for each park location.
• Service animals accompanying a person with a disability would be allowed in the park in accordance with National Park System-wide regulations.
• Informal trails are not official trails and therefore are not listed in the proposed rule and would be closed to dog walking.
• Dog walking areas in each location would be delineated and marked. Standard landscape design elements (
• Dog walkers may not enter the park with more than six dogs at one time. In addition, dog walkers entering the park with four or more dogs may not circumvent the permit requirement by walking fewer than four dogs at one time.
○ Permits would specify the areas, times and conditions under which this activity may occur.
○ Display of the NPS-issued, permit identification by the permitted dog walker would be required at all times when the permittee is walking four to six dogs in GGNRA.
○ All permits would require proof of liability insurance and approved dog-handling training through existing regionally or nationally-accredited training courses offered by organizations approved by the local county jurisdiction in which the activity will occur, and as accepted by the superintendent. A list of such courses can be obtained through the local county jurisdiction for that county in which the dog walking permit is being requested. A list of courses accepted by the superintendent will be posted on the park's Web site.
○ The NPS intends to recover the costs of administering the special use permit program under 54 U.S.C. 103104. In order to obtain a special use permit to walk more than three dogs at one time, the proposed rule would require dog walkers to pay a permit fee to allow the NPS to recover these costs.
To protect park resources, reduce visitor conflict, enhance public safety, and aid enforcement and monitoring, the proposed rule would define the terms “uncontrolled dog” and “unattended dog.” The definition of “uncontrolled dog” includes behavior by a dog that results in uninvited or unwanted physical contact with a person or another animal. To prevent unwanted and/or unsolicited contact from a dog, dog walkers are advised to ask another person (with or without a dog) whether it is acceptable for their dog to approach the other person or that person's dog. Contact by a dog that results in uninvited or unwanted physical contact would violate the proposed rule. Short of actual physical contact, the definition of uncontrolled dog also includes threatening behavior by dogs towards people or other animals such as snarling, growling, snapping, chasing, charging, repeated barking at, howling, or uninvited taking or attempting to take food. Such behavior would violate the proposed rule.
The rule would prohibit dogs from being left unattended outside, tied or untied. It would also prohibit dogs from being left unattended in a parked vehicle where they could create a nuisance, disturb the peace and tranquility of the park, or disturb wildlife; or where they could reasonably be expected to experience suffering or distress (
For the protection of the public and other pets, all dogs within GGNRA must have a current rabies vaccination. All three counties that encompass GGNRA lands (as well as neighboring Alameda County) require dogs to be licensed, require proof of a current rabies vaccination to acquire the license, and issue a proof of license (
As provided by the draft plan/SEIS, all areas open to dog walking, including Voice and Sight-Control Areas, would be subject to a Monitoring-Based Management Program to gauge compliance with NPS regulations and ensure continued protection of park resources, visitors, and staff. This program would include monitoring and recording of noncompliance with the proposed rule, including behavior that meets the definition of an uncontrolled dog or an unattended dog, dog walking in prohibited areas, and off-leash dog walking in areas where leashes are required. The program would also monitor and record dog-related violations of other NPS regulations, such as for hazardous conditions (
If the superintendent determines that the level of compliance with dog-related regulations is approaching an unacceptable level based on issues such as the number or types of violations or dog-related impacts to resources, visitors, park staff, health and safety, or peace and tranquility, or is imposing an undue burden on administrative resources, the superintendent must act to prevent those unacceptable impacts by taking management actions. Examples of primary management actions include increased outreach and education; increased area-focused enforcement of regulations; proposed fine increases; additional fencing, barriers or separations; or special use permit restrictions.
If primary management actions do not sufficiently address the problem, the superintendent would implement secondary management actions. Examples of secondary management actions may include, but are not limited to increased buffer zones, and additional use restrictions (
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 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. The executive order 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. Executive Order 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 in a manner consistent with these requirements.
This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 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. It addresses public use of national park lands, and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing the information required by Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under Executive Order 12630. 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 proposed rule only affects use of NPS administered lands and waters. It has no outside effects on other areas. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. 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 Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not required. Tribes traditionally associated with GGNRA were consulted, however, in the development of the draft Plan/SEIS.
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB has approved the information collection requirements associated with NPS Special Park Use Permits and has assigned OMB Control Number 1024-0026 (expires 08/31/16). An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information (
The preferred alternative from the draft Plan/SEIS, which this rule proposes to implement, constitutes a major Federal action with the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. We have prepared the draft Plan/SEIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Because of their inter-relatedness, the draft Plan/SEIS serves as NEPA compliance for this rule. The public comment period for the draft Plan/SEIS closed on February 18, 2014. The draft Plan/SEIS is available online at
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 (section 1(b)(12)) and 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
The following table identifies the updated trail and road names that are different than the names used in the draft/SEIS.
National Parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service proposes to amend 36 CFR part 7 as follows:
54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102; Sec. 7.96 also issued under D.C. Code 10-137 and D.C. Code 50-2201.07.
(d)(1)
(ii) To the extent not modified or relaxed by the regulations contained in paragraph (d) of this section, the regulations in section 2.15 of this chapter govern pets, including dog walking, within Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Paragraph (d) of this section does not apply to service dogs accompanying persons with a disability as authorized under applicable National Park Service regulations.
(2)
(3)
(i) You may walk a dog on-leash in parking lots, on sidewalks, on paved public roads, and in all areas where off-leash use is authorized.
(ii) You may walk one to three dogs per person at one time on-leash in the areas designated in the following table. The maps referenced in the table will be available at park visitor centers and on the park Web site.
(iii) You may walk four to six dogs per person at one time on-leash only pursuant to a permit issued by the NPS in areas designated in the following table. The maps referenced in the table will be available at park visitor centers and on the park Web site.
(iv) You may walk one to three dogs per person at one time on-leash or under voice and sight control in the Voice and Sight Control Areas designated in the following table. The maps referenced in the table will be available at park visitor centers and on the park Web site.
(v) You may walk four to six dogs per person at one time on-leash or under voice and sight control only pursuant to a permit issued by the NPS in the Voice and Sight Control Areas designated in the following table. The maps referenced in the table will be available at park visitor centers and on the park Web site.
(vi) You may not walk a dog on- or off-leash in campgrounds, public buildings, designated swimming beaches, sensitive habitat areas, and any other areas not specifically opened to dog walking in this paragraph (d).
(vii) If the park adds new trails to the park's trail system in any of the 22 locations covered by this paragraph (d), the superintendent may designate such trails as open to on-leash dog walking. If the state and local entities with land management authority for Sharp Park Beach decide to change dog walking uses at Sharp Park Beach, the superintendent may designate the small, adjacent southeast corner (0.2 acres) of the beach that is administered by the NPS for the same use. Notice of this change will be provided by one or more of the methods in section 1.7 of this chapter.
(viii) Areas open to dog walking by this paragraph (d)will be identified on maps available at park visitor centers and on the park Web site.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(ii) Walking more than six dogs at one time is prohibited.
(iii) Persons may not enter the park with more than six dogs at one time. In addition,
(8)
(ii) Violation of a term or condition of a permit issued in accordance with this section is prohibited. In addition, the superintendent may temporarily or permanently revoke a person's dog walking permit, or deny a person's request for a dog walking permit, based upon documented violation(s) of NPS regulations or failure to comply with the terms and conditions of a dog walking permit.
(9)
(10)
(ii) In counties or municipalities where an annual dog license is issued that requires proof of a current rabies vaccination, a valid, current county or municipal license tag suffices for such proof. In counties or municipalities where such current rabies documentation is not required, where such “annual” tags are not issued or where counties or municipalities are not able to release that information to NPS for purposes of health and safety or law enforcement, a dog walker must produce official documentation meeting the requirements in paragraph (d)(10)(i) of this section when asked by any authorized person.
(iii) A dog walker must immediately pick up a dog's excrement and place it in a designated garbage container or remove it from the park. Excrement may not be left on the ground, even if bagged, and may not be deposited in compost or recycling receptacles, or left on the ground in the park for collection later.
(iv) An uncontrolled dog is prohibited. A dog walker must be in control of his or her dog at all times regardless of circumstances or distractions. An authorized person may instruct a dog walker to remove an uncontrolled dog from the park.
(v) A dog in heat is prohibited.
(vi) A dog under four months old must be leashed, crated or confined in a carrier at all times, including in Voice and Sight Control Areas.
(vii) Dogs are not allowed to breed in the park.
(11)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule.
NMFS proposes to approve and implement measures included in Framework Adjustment 27 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan, which the New England Fishery Management Council adopted and submitted to NMFS for approval. The purpose of Framework 27 is to prevent overfishing, improve yield-per-recruit, and improve the overall management of the Atlantic sea scallop fishery. Framework 27 would: Set specifications for the scallop fishery for fishing year 2016, including days-at-sea allocations, individual fishing quotas, and sea scallop access area trip allocations; create a new rotational closed area south of Closed Area II to protect small scallops; and open the northern portion of the Nantucket Lightship Access Area to the Limited Access General Category fleet and transfer 19 percent of the Limited Access General Category access area trips from the Mid-Atlantic Access Area to the northern portion of the Nantucket Lightship Access Area.
Comments must be received by March 25, 2016.
The Council is developing an environmental assessment (EA) for this action that describes the proposed measures and other considered alternatives and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. The Council submitted a decision draft of the framework to NMFS that includes the draft EA, a description of the Council's preferred alternative, the Council's rationale for selecting each alternative, and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). Copies of the decision draft of the framework, the draft EA, and the IRFA, are available upon request from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0164, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Travis Ford, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9233.
The scallop fishery's management unit ranges from the shorelines of Maine through North Carolina to the outer boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone. The Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP), established in 1982, includes a number of amendments and framework adjustments that have revised and refined the fishery's management. The Council sets scallop fishery specifications through framework adjustments that occur annually or biennially. The Council adopted Framework 27 on December 3, 2015, and submitted a draft of the framework to NMFS on December 22, 2015, for review and approval. This annual action includes catch, effort, and quota allocations and adjustments to the rotational area management program for fishing year 2016.
Framework 27 specifies measures for fishing year 2016, and includes fishing year 2017 measures that will go into place as a default should the next specifications-setting framework be delayed beyond the start of fishing year 2017. NMFS will implement Framework 27, if approved, after the start of fishing year 2016; 2016 default measures concerning allocations will go into place as of March 1, 2016. These default measures are more conservative than the Framework 27 proposed allocations and would be replaced by the higher Framework 27 allocations if this action is approved. The Council has reviewed the Framework 27 proposed rule regulations as drafted by NMFS and deemed them to be necessary and appropriate as specified in section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).
The Council set the proposed OFL based on a fishing mortality (F) of 0.48, equivalent to the F threshold updated through the 2014 assessment. The Council bases the proposed ABC and the equivalent total ACL for each fishing year on an F of 0.38, which is the F associated with a 25-percent probability of exceeding the OFL. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee recommended a scallop fishery ABC for both the 2016 and 2017 fishing years of 83.4 million lb (37,852 mt), after accounting for discards and incidental mortality. The Scientific and Statistical Committee will reevaluate an ABC for 2017 when the Council develops the next framework adjustment.
Table 1 outlines the proposed scallop fishery catch limits that are derived from the ABC values. After deducting the incidental target total allowable catch (TAC) and the research set-aside (RSA) and the observer set-aside, the remaining ACL available to the fishery is allocated according to the fleet proportions established in Amendment 11 to the FMP (72 FR 20090; April 14, 2008): 94.5 percent allocated to the limited access (LA) scallop fleet (
This action would deduct 1.25 million lb (567 mt) of scallops annually for 2016 and 2017 from the ABC and set it aside as the Scallop RSA to fund scallop research and to compensate participating vessels through the sale of scallops harvested under RSA projects. As of March 1, 2016, this set-aside will be available for harvest by RSA-funded projects in open areas. Framework 27 would allow RSA to be harvested from the Mid-Atlantic Access Area (MAAA) that is proposed to be open for 2016, once this action is approved and implemented, but would prevent RSA harvesting from access areas under 2017 default measures. Of this 1.25 million lb (567 mt) allocation, NMFS has already allocated 3,393 lb (1.5 mt) to previously funded multi-year projects as part of the 2015 RSA awards process. NMFS is reviewing proposals submitted for consideration of 2016 RSA awards and will be selecting projects for funding in the near future.
This action would also set aside 1 percent of the ABC for the industry-funded observer program to help defray the cost of scallop vessels that carry an observer. The observer set-aside for fishing years 2016 and 2017 is 379 mt. The Council may adjust the 2017 observer set-aside when it develops specific, non-default measures for 2017.
This action would implement vessel-specific DAS allocations for each of the three LA scallop DAS permit categories (
On March 1, 2016, full-time, part-time, and occasional vessels will receive 26, 10.40, and 2.17 DAS, respectively. These allocations would increase as soon as we implement Framework 27, if approved.
For fishing year 2016 and the start of 2017, Framework 27 would keep all three Georges Bank Access Areas (
Table 3 outlines the proposed LA allocations that can be fished from the MAAA, which could be taken in as many trips as needed, so long as the trip possession limits (also in Table 3) are not exceeded. These proposed access area allocations for 2016 are equivalent to access area allocations for 2015.
1. Delayed Harvesting of Default 2017 MAAA Allocations. Although the Framework would include precautionary access area allocations for the 2017 fishing year (see 2017 allocations in Table 4), vessels would have to wait to fish these allocations until April 1, 2017. This precautionary measure is designed to protect scallops when scallop meat weights are lower than other times of the year (generally, this change in meat-weight is a physiological change in scallops due to spawning). However, if a vessel has not fully harvested its 2016 scallop access area allocation in fishing year 2016, it may still fish the remainder of its allocation in the first 60 days of 2017 (
2. 2017 RSA Harvest Restrictions. This action proposes that vessels participating in RSA projects would be prohibited from harvesting RSA in access areas under default 2017 measures. At the start of 2017, RSA could only be harvested from open areas. The Council would re-evaluate this measure in the framework action that would set final 2017 specifications.
1.
Because Framework 27 would not go into effect until after the March 1 start of fishing year 2016, the default 2016 IFQ allocations will go into effect. These default 2016 IFQ allocations are lower than those proposed in Framework 27. If approved, this action would increase the current vessel IFQ allocations.
2.
3.
Framework 27 would allocate 2,068 and 602 trips in 2016 and 2017, respectively, to the MAAA. Under default 2017 measures, LAGC IFQ vessels must wait to fish these trips until April 1, 2017. It would also allocate 485 trips to the NLSN for fishing year 2016. The total number of trips (2,553) for fishing year 2016 is equivalent to the overall proportion of total catch from access areas compared to total catch. Framework 27 would not allocate any trips in NLSN for the 2017 fishing year.
4.
5.
This proposed rule includes several revisions to the regulatory text to address text that is unnecessary, outdated, unclear, or NMFS could otherwise improve. NMFS proposes these changes consistent with section 305(d) of the MSA which provides that the Secretary of Commerce may promulgate regulations necessary to ensure that amendments to an FMP are carried out in accordance with the FMP and the MSA. The first revision, at § 648.14(i)(2)(ii)(B)(
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law. In making the final determination, NMFS will consider the data, views, and comments received during the public comment period.
This proposed rule does not contain policies with federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An IRFA has been prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA consists of Framework 27 analyses, the draft IRFA, and the preamble to this action.
This action proposes the management measures and specifications for the Atlantic sea scallop fishery for 2016, with 2017 default measures. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in Framework 27 and the preamble of this proposed rule and are not repeated here.
This action contains no new collection-of-information, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements.
The proposed regulations do not create overlapping regulations with any state regulations or other federal laws.
The proposed regulations would affect all vessels with LA and LAGC scallop permits. The Framework 27 decision draft provides extensive information on the number and size of vessels and small businesses that would be affected by the proposed regulations, by port and state (see
Ownership data from 2014 result in 166 distinct ownership entities for the LA fleet and 106 distinct ownership entities for the LAGC IFQ fleet. Of these, and based on the Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines, 152 of the LA distinct ownership entities and 102 of the LAGC IFQ entities are categorized as small. The remaining 14 of the LA and 4 of the LAGC IFQ entities are categorized as large entities, all of which are shellfish businesses.
The proposed alternative would allocate each full-time LA vessel 34.55 open area DAS and a 51,000 lb (23,133 kg) allocation in the MAAA. The LAGC IFQ ACL is 4,473,180 lb (2,029 mt) and this fleet is allocated access area trips in the MAAA and NLSN which would be open to LAGC vessels only. NMFS expects that this alternative would positively impact profitability of small entities regulated by this action in 2016. NMFS expects the estimated revenues and net revenue for scallop vessels and small business entities would be higher under all considered allocations alternatives, including the preferred alternative, than under the No Action alternative (
Framework 27 includes five allocation alternatives including the “No Action” alternative. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3A) would have about 43 percent higher benefits compared to the No Action which would translate to higher profits. However, it would have lower revenue compared to other alternatives in the 2016 fishing year (Table 4).
Alternative 2 would set target catches using the three principles developed as part of the “hybrid” overfishing definition approved in Amendment 15, and not include additional closures or modifications to boundaries of the overall area rotation program. Each full-time LA vessel would be allocated 36.53 DAS for the open areas and a 51,000 lb (23,133 kg) allocation in the MAAA and Closed Area 2 (one access area per trip; split trips for the fleet).
Under Alternative 3 each full-time vessel would be allocated 34.55 DAS and 51,000 lb (23,133 kg) to MAAA and Closed Area 2 (one access area per trip; split trips for the fleet). However, a new area south of Closed Area 2 would be closed to fishing to protect the small scallops. Preferred Alternative 3A is similar to Alternative 3, except LA vessels would not be allocated trips in Closed Area 2. Instead, those trips would be shifted to MAAA with the existing Elephant Trunk Closed Area closed, Closed Area 1 and Closed Area 2 access areas closed, and NLSN open to LAGC vessels only. Similar to the other alternatives, each full-time LA vessel would be allocated 51,000 lb (23,133 kg) in MAAA.
Alternative 4 would extend the boundaries of the existing Elephant Trunk Closed Area which was closed to fishing in 2015 to protect small scallops, but open area DAS and access area allocations would be similar to Alternative 2.
Allocations for Alternative 5 would be similar to the allocations for Alternative 2; however, in addition to the MAAA and Closed Area 2, this alternative would also provide a limited amount of effort, for both the LA and the LAGC fleets, to a portion of the NLSN expected to have lower densities of small scallops.
As for LAGC IFQ access area allocations, the preferred alternative (Option 2) would provide proportional access for LA and LAGC IFQ for the access areas. The number of trips would be based on the total proportion of catch from access areas compared to open areas (34 percent for 2,553 trips). Thus, it would allocate about 1.5 million lb (680 mt) of the total LAGC allocation of 4.4 million lb (1996 mt) from access areas, while about 3 million lb would still be left of the LAGC quota to be harvested in open areas. Preferred area option (option 3) would allocate about 19 percent of these trips (or 300,000 lb (136 mt)) to the NLSN which is open to LAGC vessels only. Because of the proximity of the LAGC vessels which are smaller in size and homeported in Massachusetts to NLSN, this option will reduce fishing costs and have positive impacts on their profits. Therefore, preferred alternative for LAGC access area allocations would have highest economic benefits compared to both No Action allocations and other options that allocate a smaller percentage of access area trips to the LAGC fishery.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(i) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) * * *
(
(3) * * *
(v) * * *
(B) Declare into or leave port for an area specified in § 648.59(a) through (d) after the effective date of a notification published in the
(C) Fish for, possess, or land scallops in or from any Sea Scallop Access Area specified at § 648.59, unless declared into the Sea Scallop Access Area Program.
(e) * * *
(2) The vessel may not use or have more than one dredge on board. However, component parts may be on board the vessel such that they do not conform with the definition of “dredge or dredge gear” in § 648.2,
(f) A limited access vessel or an LAGC vessel that is declared into the Sea Scallop Area Access Program as described in § 648.60, may not possess more than 50 bu (17.6 hL) or 75 bu (26.4 hL), respectively, of in-shell scallops outside of the Access Areas described in § 648.59(a) through (e).
(a)
(1) ABC/ACL for fishing years 2016 through 2017, excluding discards, shall be:
(i) 2016: 37,852 mt.
(ii) 2017: 37,852 mt.
(2)
(3)
(i) The limited access fishery sub-ACLs for fishing years 2016 and 2017 are:
(A) 2016: 36,884 mt.
(B) 2017: 36,884 mt.
(ii) The limited access fishery ACTs for fishing years 2016 and 2017 are:
(A) 2016: 18,290 mt.
(B) 2017: 18,290 mt.
(4)
(i) The ACLs for fishing years 2016 and 2017 for LAGC IFQ vessels without a limited access scallop permit are:
(A) 2016: 1,845 mt.
(B) 2017: 1,845 mt.
(ii) The ACLs for fishing years 2016 and 2017 for vessels issued both a LAGC and a limited access scallop permits are:
(A) 2016: 184 mt.
(B) 2017: 184 mt.
(b) * * *
(1)
(i) 2016 fishing year: 2,316 lb/DAS (1,051 kg/DAS).
(ii) 2017 fishing year: 2,690 lb/DAS (1,220 kg/DAS).
(iii) [Reserved]
(4) Each vessel qualifying for one of the three DAS categories specified in the table in this paragraph (b)(4) (full-time,
(g) * * *
(1) To help defray the cost of carrying an observer, 1 percent of the ABC/ACL specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be set aside to be used by vessels that are assigned to take an at-sea observer on a trip. The total TAC for observer set aside is 379 mt in fishing year 2016, and 379 mt in fishing year 2017.
(b)
(2)
(c)
(e)
7. In § 648.59, paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1), (c)(1), and (d)(1) are revised and paragraph (a)(2)(i) is removed and reserved to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) Beginning March 1, 2016, through February 28, 2018 (
(2) * * *
(i) [Reserved]
(b) * * *
(1) From March 1, 2016, through February 28, 2018 (
(c) * * *
(1) From March 1, 2016, through February 28, 2018 (
(d) * * *
(1) From March 1, 2016, through February 28, 2018 (
8. In § 648.60, paragraphs (a)(3)(i), (a)(5)(i), (c), (e), (g) introductory text and (g)(3) are revised to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3)
(B)
(
(C)
(
(D)
(
(5)
(c)
(e)
(i) 2016: The Mid-Atlantic Scallop Access Area, as specified in § 648.59(a).
(ii) 2017: None.
(2) [Reserved]
(g)
(3)
(ii) Scallops landed by each LAGC IFQ vessel on an access area trip shall count against the vessel's IFQ.
(iii) Upon a determination from the Regional Administrator that the total number of LAGC IFQ trips in a specified Access Area have been or are projected to be taken, the Regional Administrator shall publish notification of this determination in the
(iv)
(B) The Nantucket Lightship North Sea Scallop Access Area is defined by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated (copies of a chart depicting this area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request):
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability of proposed fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.
NMFS announces that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has submitted Amendment 17 to the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan for review and approval by the Secretary of Commerce. We are requesting comments from the public on the amendment. Amendment 17 would establish cost recovery provisions for these individual transferable quota clam fisheries, modify how biological reference points
Comments must be received on or before April 25, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0057, by any one of the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
• Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Surfclam/Ocean Quahog Amendment 17.”
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted to
NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted via Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Copies of Amendment 17, and of the draft Environmental Assessment and preliminary Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR), are available from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901. The EA/RIR is also accessible via the Internet at:
Douglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9341.
We are soliciting public comments on Amendment 17 and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period stated in this notice of availability. We will publish a proposed rule in the
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council developed this amendment to establish a program to recover the costs of managing the surfclam and ocean quahog individual transferable quota (ITQ) fisheries, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and to make administrative changes to improve the efficiency of the FMP. The Amendment would create a cost recovery program for the surfclam and ocean quahog ITQ fisheries modeled on the Council's existing cost recovery program for the Tilefish Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program. Under the proposed program, any surfclam or ocean quahog ITQ permit holder who has quota share (
16 U.S.C. 1801
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of the public meeting of the Board for International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD). The meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 12:25 p.m. EDT on Thursday, March 10, 2016 at the National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW., Washington, DC The meeting will be streamed live on the Internet. The link to the global live stream is on BIFAD's home page:
The central theme of this public meeting will be
Following new business, Chairman Deaton will introduce USAID Higher Education Coordinator Dr. Barbara Schneeman to give remarks. At 9:00 a.m. Dr. Beth Dunford, USAID/Bureau for Food Security Assistant to the Administrator and Deputy Coordinator for Development for Feed the Future, will provide an update to BIFAD and the public on Feed the Future, the U.S. Government's global hunger and food security initiative.
Starting at 9:15 a.m., BIFAD Board Member Cary Fowler will moderate a panel to inform BIFAD and the public on trends and issues around CGIAR engagement. Presenters for this panel are Dr. Robert Bertram, USAID/Bureau for Food Security; Dr. Juergen Voegele, The World Bank; Dr. Molly Jahn, CGIAR Board; Dr. Marianne Banziger, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT).
Starting at 10:45 a.m., Association for Public and Land-grant University (APLU) President, Dr. Peter McPherson, will moderate a panel on Feed the Future University engagement with the CGIAR. Presenters for this panel are Dr. Michael Clark, University of California, Davis (Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Assets and Markets Access); Dr. Vara Prasad, Kansas State University (Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Sustainable Intensification); Dr. Adegbola Adesogan, University of Florida (Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Livestock Systems); Susan Johnson, University of California, Davis (Borlaug LEAP Program).
At 12:00 p.m., Chairman Deaton will moderate a half-hour public comment period. At 12:25 p.m. EDT Dr. Deaton, will make closing remarks and adjourn the public meeting.
Those wishing to attend the meeting or obtain additional information about BIFAD should contact Susan Owens, Executive Director and Designated Federal Officer for BIFAD in the Bureau for Food Security at USAID. Interested persons may write to her in care of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Ronald Reagan Building, Bureau for Food Security, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 2.09-067, Washington, DC, 20523-2110 or telephone her at (202) 712-0218.
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are sponsoring a public meeting on March 23, 2016. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States positions to be discussed at the 48th Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), taking place in Chongqing, China, April 25-29, 2016. The Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety and EPA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 48th session of the CCPR and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 23, 2016, from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
The public meeting will take place at the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Room S-7100, One Potomac Yard South; 2777 South Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia, 22202.
Documents related to the 48th Session of the CCPR are accessible via the Internet at the following address:
Captain David Miller, U.S. Delegate to the 48th session of the CCPR, and the EPA and the USDA, invite U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
If you wish to participate in the public meeting for the 48th session of the CCPR by conference call, please use the call-in-number and participant code listed below:
Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure that fair practices are used in trade.
The CCPR is responsible for establishing maximum limits for pesticide residues in specific food items or in groups of food; establishing maximum limits for pesticide residues in certain animal feeding stuffs moving in international trade where this is justified for reasons of protection of human health; preparing priority lists of pesticides for evaluation by the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR); considering methods of sampling and analysis for the determination of pesticide residues in food and feed; considering other matters in relation to the safety of food and feed containing pesticide residues; and establishing maximum limits for environmental and industrial contaminants showing chemical or other similarity to pesticides, in specific food items or groups of food.
The Committee is hosted by China.
The following items on the Agenda for the 48th Session of the CCPR will be discussed during the public meeting:
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat before the Committee Meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see
At the March 23, 2016, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to Captain David Miller, U.S. Delegate for the 48th session of the CCPR (see
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or Email:
Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.
Fax: (202) 690-7442.
Email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Trinity County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Weaverville, California. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
The meeting will be held from 3:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on April 4, 2016.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at Trinity County Office of Education, Conference Room, 201 Memorial Drive, Weaverville, California. Memorial Drive is at the west end of Weaverville, just off Highway 299 on the road leading to Weaverville High School.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Tina Lynsky, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at 530-623-2121 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Review proposals for Secure Rural Schools Title II funding, and
2. Vote on proposals to recommend to the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Supervisor for approval.
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 1, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Tina Lynsky, Designated Federal Officer, Post Office Box 1190, Weaverville, California 96093; by email to
Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest, Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of New Fee Sites.
The Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest is proposing to charge a $45 fee for the overnight rental for each of the Granite Butte Historic Fire Lookout and the Miller Creek Cabin. These sites have not been available for recreation use prior to this date. Rentals of other cabins on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest have shown that people appreciate and enjoy the availability of historic rental lookouts and cabins. Funds from the rentals will be used for the continued operation and maintenance of the Granite Butte Lookout and Miller Creek Cabin. This fee is only proposed and will be determined upon further analysis and public comment.
Send any comments about these fee proposals by April 11, 2016 so comments can be compiled, analyzed, and shared with the Western Montana Recreation Resource Advisory Committee. Both Granite Butte Lookout and Miller Cabin are proposed for recreation rental August, 2016.
William Avey, Forest Supervisor, Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest, 2880 Skyway Drive, Helena, MT 59602 or Email to
Concerning Granite Butte Lookout: Josh Lattin, Natural Resource Specialist, Lincoln Ranger District at 406-362-7011 or
The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the
This new fee will be reviewed by the Western Montana Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation.
The Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest currently has seven other cabin rentals; however, this will be the first lookout available to rent on the Forest. These rentals are often fully booked throughout their rental season. A business analysis of the Granite Butte Lookout and Miller Creek Cabin has shown that people desire having this sort of recreation experience on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest, as well as surrounding Forests. A market analysis indicates that the $45/per night fee is both reasonable and acceptable for this sort of unique recreation experience.
People wanting to rent Granite Butte Lookout or Miller Creek Cabin will need to do so through the National Recreation Reservation Service, at
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The North Central Idaho Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Grangeville, Idaho. 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
The meeting will be held on March 30-31, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests Grangeville Office, 104 Airport Road, Grangeville, Idaho.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Laura Smith, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at 208-983-5143 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Present project proposals; and
2. Select the projects to recommend for Title II funding.
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 March 23, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Laura Smith, Designated Federal Officer, 104 Airport Road, Grangeville, Idaho 83530; by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of an advisory committee renewal.
The Secretary of Agriculture has renewed the National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule (Committee). In accordance with provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Committee has been renewed to continue providing advice and recommendations on the implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule (Planning Rule). The Committee will also deliberate and formulate advice for the Secretary to aid in the implementation of the new Planning Rule. The Committee is necessary and in the public interest.
The charter renewal was effective February 3, 2016. As provided by the FACA law, the charter will expire 24 months from the date of renewal.
Ann Acheson, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Forest System, Ecosystem Management Coordination; telephone: 202-205-1275, Email:
In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), the Secretary of Agriculture has renewed the National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule (Committee). The Committee is a discretionary advisory committee.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice and recommendations on implementation of the planning rule. The Committee will be solely advisory in nature. Advice or recommendations of the Committee will be given only with respect to the implementation of the planning rule and associated projects. All activities of the Committee will be conducted in an open, transparent, and accessible manner. The Committee will be asked to perform the following duties or other requests made by the Secretary or the Chief:
• Offer recommendations on outreach efforts, public engagement, and stakeholder collaboration;
• Offer recommendations on broad scale and multiparty monitoring and other ways to engage partnerships in land management plan revisions;
• Offer recommendations on communication tools and strategies to help provide greater understanding of the land management planning process; and
• Offer recommendations on potential best management practices and problem solving resulting from early implementation of the 2012 Planning Rule.
This Committee is currently comprised of 21 members who provide balanced and broad representation within each of the following three categories of interests:
1. Up to seven members who represent one or more of the following:
a. Represent the affected public at-large;
b. Hold State-elected office (or designee);
c. Hold county or local elected office;
d. Represent American Indian Tribes; and
e. Represent Youth.
2. Up to seven members who represent one or more of the following:
a. National, regional, or local environmental organizations;
b. Conservation organizations or watershed associations;
c. Dispersed recreation interests;
d. Archaeological or historical interests; and
e. Scientific Community.
3. Up to seven members who represent one or more of the following:
a. Timber Industry;
b. Grazing or other land use permit holders or other private forest landowners;
c. Energy and mineral development;
d. Commercial or recreational hunting and fishing interests; and
e. Developed outdoor recreation, off-highway vehicle users, or commercial recreation interests.
The Committee will serve 2-year terms and will meet three to six times annually, or as often as necessary at the times designated by the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). The appointment of members to the Committee are made by the Secretary of Agriculture. Members of the Committee serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for travel expenses while performing duties on behalf of the Committee, subject to approval by the DFO. Further information about the Committee is posted on the Planning Rule Advisory Committee Web site:
Equal opportunity practices were followed in accordance with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) policies. To ensure that the recommendations of the Committee have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership includes to the extent possible, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent the needs of all racial and ethnic groups, women and men, and persons with disabilities.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
This project proposes to reduce or prolong the overall susceptibility to mountain pine beetle attacks and crown fires in a subset of previously harvested areas within the analysis area. Precommercial thinning is proposed so trees within these stands maintain diameter and height growth as well as increased crown development and to move this project area toward meeting specific goals, and objectives outlined in the Targhee National Forest Revised Forest Management Plan (RFP) and the Properly Functioning Condition Assessment (PFC).
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by March 25, 2016. The draft environmental impact statement is expected July 2016 and the final environmental impact statement is expected January 2017.
Send written comments to Mike Alfieri, Island Park Ranger Station, 3726 Highway 20, Island Park, ID 83429. Comments may also be sent via email to
Mike Alfieri, Forestry Technician 208-558-4210 or
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of this project is to reduce or prolong the overall susceptibility to mountain pine beetle attacks and crown fires in a subset of previously harvested areas within the analysis area. The purpose is to also to provide for a variety of resource products now and in the future. All of the areas identified for treatment were harvested using the clearcut method over 20 years ago and are regenerated with hundreds and even thousands of trees per acre, primarily of lodgepole pine. Precommercial thinning is proposed so trees within these stands maintain diameter and height growth as well as increased crown development and to move this project area toward meeting specific goals, and objectives outlined in the Targhee National Forest Revised Forest Management Plan (RFP) and the PFC. These include:
1. Use vegetation management to achieve a broad array of multiple-use and ecosystem management objectives, including forest health, structure, composition, and distribution in larger landscapes. . . . Develop long term vegetation and density management strategies to reduce the risk of a future catastrophic bark beetle epidemic (RFP III-12). For the Buffalo project area this goal has been further refined as leaving approximately 195 trees per acre or a 15 by 15 foot overall tree spacing to prolong the susceptibility to future mountain pine beetle attacks.
2. Lodgepole pine stands in Watershed 10 would provide a variety of forest products now and in the future. More dense stands would provide smaller diameter products such as post and poles; less dense stands would provide larger diameter trees that could be harvested as sawtimber in the future. Stands that remain susceptible to crown fire or mountain pine beetle would eventually die providing firewood. For the Buffalo project, firewood, post and poles could be a byproduct of the proposed treatments. In the future, the areas thinned with this proposal would provide sawtimber available for future harvest (RFP III 31-33).
3. The likelihood of future landscape-level crown fire will be reduced in order to protect human life and safety, developments, structures, and sensitive resource values (RFP III-6). The roadside fuelbreak along a portion of Fish Creek Road would increase chances that firefighters will be able to safely engage either unwanted wildfires or fires for resource benefit. For the Buffalo project area, the various treatments would reduce spacing between tree canopies to reduce the potential of crown fire; and ground fuels will be minimized to decrease the potential for a surface fire and for a surface fire to reach the crowns.
The desired condition for this project is outlined in the three goals stated above. The need for this project is to bring this landscape closer to meeting these desired conditions.
With reference to susceptibility to mountain pine beetle, thinned lodgepole stands have more open grown conditions which leave tree stand's microclimate less desirable for mountain pine beetle. Wind speeds can increase within thinned stands, disrupting pheromone plumes that let other beetles know there is available food. Efforts to prevent undesirable levels of bark beetle-caused tree mortality must change susceptibility through reductions in tree competition, disruption of pheromone plumes thus negatively affecting host-finding, and reduction in the fecundity, fitness and survivorship of target bark beetle species. Less dense trees have thicker phloem which favors mountain pine beetle production but this strategy also increases resistance of individual trees through increased tree vigor allowing the trees the energy or turgor pressure to expel the beetle. Trees of low vigor related to a higher relative stand density caused by competition for water and nutrients are more susceptible to bark beetle attack. Areas that are not precommercially thinned and have very high densities of lodgepole pine are also less susceptible for mountain pine beetle because of reduced phloem thickness.
Watershed 10 will have a variety of lodgepole pine stands that would
In lodgepole pine-dominated stands, fire can behave in two different extremes. Typically, fire creeps and smolders along the forest floor shaded by the dense tree canopy and hindered by the lack of ground fuels. However, under dry and windy conditions with heavy dead fuel accumulations, fires can spread through those surface fuels and quickly get up into the canopy. These fires are typically high-intensity, stand-replacing fires that do not occur often, but burn many acres and are very difficult to extinguish when they do occur. If left untreated, the current lodgepole pine-dominated stands within this project would over time create the surface fuels necessary to allow fire to get into the canopy and potentially produce crown fire that is so difficult to suppress. The roadside fuels reduction project would enhance a fuel break along a key Forest Service Road, Fish Creek (082) to increase chances that firefighters will be able to safely engage either unwanted wildfires or fires for resource benefit. Roadside fuel breaks located in areas where fire can be safely restored to the landscape would contribute to maintaining fire as a disturbance on this landscape as well as allow safe effective wildfire response with minimal exposure to firefighters. This fuel break is located within the wildland urban interface (WUI) and would remove surface, ladder, and crown fuels.
The proposed action would precommercially thin approximately 3900 acres located within the Buffalo River Watershed to achieve the desired conditions stated in the Purpose and Need. Areas identified to be thinned are past harvest units composed primarily of lodgepole pine presently stocked at greater than 500 trees per acre.
• Trees would be thinned to a 15 by 15 foot spacing with the exception of the Aquatic Influence Zone (AIZ).
• Within 25 feet of any stream or AIZ, Reduce leave tree spacing from 15 by 15 foot spacing to 12 by 12 foot spacing, unless approved by a hydrologist or fish biologist.
• Within riparian areas and Aquatic Influence Zones (AIZ) felled trees would be left where they fall and felled in a way that protects residual vegetation from damage.
Roadside fuel break—Within the 600 feet (300 feet on either side of the road) of the Fish Creek Road (FS 082).
• Thin to a 20 by 20 foot spacing.
• Within 25 feet of any stream or aquatic influence zone (AIZ), reduce leave tree spacing to 12 by 12 feet, unless approved by a hydrologist or fish biologist.
• Masticate remaining slash. Masticated chips would not exceed a depth of three inches.
• Areas designated for tree removal will not impact current road closures.
• Pioneered roads will be rehabilitated once trees have been removed.
• Within AIZs, do not remove (for pile burning or mastication) dead and down material greater than 6 inches or less than 2 inches in diameter.
• Within AIZ, lop and scatter material that is less than 2 inches in diameter (
• Where feasible, do not pile burn or masticate within AIZ. If practicable, pull material completely outside of the AIZ to pile burn or masticate. If not feasible, pile material as far from stream channels as practical given the local terrain.
• No heavy equipment operation (
• Within AIZ, minimize the mechanized treatment of wood residue. All debris associated with treatments shall be left or placed in such a manner as to prevent their entry into streams.
• Do not burn material within the bankfull channel.
• Fell trees in a way that protects residual vegetation from damage. Minimize ground-disturbing activities.
• Avoid heavy equipment use on slopes greater than 40 percent.
• Rutting in skid trails should not exceed six to eight inches in depth (wet condition) over more than ten percent of a designated skid trail system. No yarding operations should take place when ground conditions are wet enough that there is a risk of such rutting. Avoid operations if soil is saturated.
• No new roads, skid trails, or landings will be constructed within the AIZ until appropriate standards for construction, maintenance, and operations are in place. Use previously disturbed areas for landings. All newly constructed landings, skid trails, and temporary roads shall be obliterated. No temporary stream crossings are necessary.
• Trees remaining following thinning would have straight stems, well-formed crowns, be free of insect or disease damage, vigorous annual terminal growth, and crown ratio of 40 percent or more.
• To promote species diversity, conifers other than lodgepole pine would remain within the treatment units except in aspen clumps.
• No aspen would be cut.
• No five needle pines would be cut.
• All conifers except five needle pines would be cut within two aspen tree heights of an aspen clump (3 or more aspen trees).
• Cutting of trees would be accomplished by crews using chain saws.
• Trees on the ground would provide opportunities to gather firewood, post and poles anywhere within the treatment units. Those removing products can only drive within 300 feet of either side of an open or gated forest service system road to retrieve their wood.
• Each treatment would be sequenced as follows: Cut trees, remove products removal such as firewood, post or poles would occur for not more than three years, treat slash.
• There would be no new road construction or reconstruction. No decommissioned roads would be opened for the project. Approximately 13.82 miles of restricted (gated roads) would be used to access thinning units. The gated roads would only be used by people associated with the thinning project and the gates would remain locked at all times.
• Following precommercial thinning operations, gated roads (FS Roads 083, 105, 448, 447 and 116) would be opened as necessary to firewood, post and pole removal within the treatment units. Those removing firewood, post and poles can only drive within 300 feet of either side of an open or gated forest service system road to retrieve their wood.
• All open and restricted gated roads within or adjacent to the units shall be kept free of felled trees.
• No thinning activities would occur before July 1 to reduce the effects to nesting migratory birds.
• All contractors and people involved with the proposed project must comply with the applicable food storage special order in effect when the work is performed.
• There is one pond located within the project area. No precommercial thinning will occur within 300 feet of the pond to avoid adverse effects to amphibians.
• Generally strive to maintain fine organic matter over at least 50 percent of the area (RFP, pages III-6 & 7).
• Five to ten tons of woody debris would remain on the ground following treatments.
• Areas of pile burning will be evaluated and monitored to determine if seeding or additional rehabilitation is warranted to minimize weed spread and maintain soil productivity.
• Adjust chipping size and depth to provide a variation of chip depth (maximum depth of three inches including patches of unchipped) and chip size to allow differing decomposition rates and soil moisture retention lengths and to avoid negatively impacting available soil nitrogen.
• Locate public firewood as close to the existing roads as possible (material resulting from thinning).
• Plan for burning of piles to occur when soils are wet from snow or rain to limit impacts on soil organic matter, physical properties and soil organisms.
• Routes pioneered into the project area will need to be evaluated for the most appropriate rehabilitation and closure methods. Options may include: Leaving additional slash over the area, roughing up the segment where the route departs from a system road or mastication perpendicular to the segment.
At a minimum, the proposed action and a no action alternative would be analyzed.
The Ashton/Island Park District Ranger is the responsible official and will make the decision.
In the decision, the responsible official will decide whether or not to precommercially thin the identified stands of trees.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement.
The purpose of this comment period is to provide an opportunity for the public to provide early and meaningful participation on a proposed action prior to a decision being made by the Responsible Official. It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however.
Public comment on this analysis is pursuant to the pre-decisional process described at 36 CFR 218, Subparts A and B.
Only those who comment and meet all the requirements contained in 36 CFR 218.25(a)(3) will have standing to object to the project during the 45 day pre-decisional objection period. The objection period will occur following the distribution of the final EIS and draft Record of Decision. Comments submitted in response to this solicitation must meet the definition of “specific written comments” as defined at 36 CFR 218.2, particularly “. . . specific written comments should be within the scope of the proposed action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and must include supporting reasons for the responsible official to consider.”
Forest Service, USDA
Notice of meetings.
The National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule Committee (Committee) will meet in Washington, DC. Attendees may also participate via webinar and conference call. The Committee operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463). Committee information can be found by visiting the Committee's Web site at:
The meetings will be held in-person and via webinar/conference call on the following dates and times:
• Tuesday, March 8, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST
• Wednesday, March 9, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST
All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of meetings prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the USDA Forest Service, Sidney R. Yates Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, Southwest, Washington DC. For anyone who would like to attend via webinar and/or conference call, please visit the Web site listed above or contact the person listed in the section titled
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Jennifer Helwig, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 202-205-0892, or by 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 this meeting is to provide:
1. Continued deliberations on formulating advice for the Secretary,
2. Discussion of Committee work group findings,
3. Hearing public comments, and
4. Administrative tasks.
This meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral comments of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the emergency provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
In the
Also, under “Needs and Uses:” paragraph 3, beginning with “Section 202(o)(3) of the Act . . .”, eliminate the last sentence: “OTEX was unable to publish these procedures earlier and is requesting an emergency review of the information collection and procedures from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).”
In the
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Greater Detroit Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 70, requesting authority to reorganize the zone to expand its service area under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the FTZ Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on February 18, 2016.
FTZ 70 was approved by the FTZ Board on July 21, 1981 (Board Order 176, 46 FR 3894l; July 30, l98l) and reorganized under the ASF on February 6, 2013 (Board Order 1878, FR 10129-10130; February 13, 2013). The zone currently has a service area that includes Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, Washtenaw and Wayne Counties, Michigan.
The applicant is now requesting authority to expand the service area of the zone to include Lenawee and Livingston Counties, Michigan, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the expanded service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The application indicates that the proposed expanded service area is adjacent to the Detroit Customs and Border Protection Port of Entry.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 25, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to May 9, 2016.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
Notice of Issuance of an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to the California Pistachio Export Council (“CPEC”), Application No. (03-1A008).
The Secretary of Commerce, through the Office of Trade and Economic Analysis (“OTEA”), issued an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to the California Pistachio Export Council on February 3, 2016.
Joseph E. Flynn, Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, by telephone at (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2016).
OTEA is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the
1. Remove the following company as Member of the Certificate: Gold Coast Pistachios, Inc.
2. Change the name of an existing Member: A&P Growers Cooperative, Inc. is now Horizon Marketing Agency in Common Cooperative Inc.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice.
The Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) will meet Wednesday, March 23, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Thursday, March 24, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and Friday, March 25, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. All sessions will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 23, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Thursday, March 24, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and Friday, March 25, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will take place at the United States Access Board Conference Room, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.
Annie Sokol, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930, telephone: (301) 975-2006, or by email at:
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) will meet Wednesday, March 23, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Thursday, March 24, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and Friday, March 25, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. All sessions will be open to the public. The ISPAB is authorized by 15 U.S.C. 278g-4, as amended, and advises the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on information security and privacy issues pertaining to Federal government information systems, including thorough review of proposed standards and guidelines developed by NIST. Details regarding the ISPAB's activities are available at
The agenda is expected to include the following items:
Note that agenda items may change without notice. The final agenda will be posted on the Web site indicated above. Seating will be available for the public and media. No registration is required to attend this meeting.
Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements. In addition, written statements are invited and may be submitted to the ISPAB at any time. All written statements should be directed to the ISPAB Secretariat, Information Technology Laboratory, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This Exempted Fishing Permit would exempt commercial fishing vessels from Atlantic sea scallop regulations in support of research conducted by the Coonamessett Farm Foundation. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed Exempted Fishing Permits.
Comments must be received on or before March 10, 2016.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Shannah Jaburek, Fisheries Management Specialist, 978-282-8456.
NOAA Fisheries awarded the Coonamesset Farm Foundation (CFF) a grant through the 2015 Atlantic sea scallop research set-aside (RSA) program, in support of a project titled, “Habitat Characterization and Sea Scallop Resource Enhancement Study in a Proposed Habitat Research Area-Year Three.” CFF has also submitted a proposal for a project of similar design for consideration under the 2016 Atlantic sea scallop RSA program titled “Drivers of Dispersal and Retention in Recently Seeded Sea Scallops.” Final project selections for the 2016 scallop RSA program are still to be determined and grant funding is expected sometime in March 2016. CFF submitted a complete application for an EFP for both projects on November 12, 2015. The main objectives for these projects are:
1. Perform a seeding operation and monitor environmental conditions before and after seeding;
2. Test a new cost-effective technique for marking and tracking seed scallops by size class;
3. Monitor transplanted scallops using an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) to quantify scallop and predator densities, dispersal rates, and survival; and
4. Investigate the different seedbed characteristics to provide insight into factors behind transplant success or failure.
Each project would transplant scallops from areas of high concentration to areas of lower concentration that were historically known to have high scallop densities, to demonstrate the feasibility of a reseeding program to enhance and stabilize scallop recruitment on Georges Bank. The Exempted Fishing Permit would exempt participating vessels from Atlantic sea scallop days-at-sea allocations at 50 CFR 648.53(b); crew size restrictions at § 648.51(c); Atlantic sea scallop observer program requirements at § 648.11(g); and closed area exemptions for Nantucket Lightship at § 648.58(c). It would also exempt participating vessels from the access area program requirements at § 648.60(a)(4), which would allow them to transit in and out of the access areas from the open area, as well as from the 50 bushel in-shell scallop possession limit outside of an access area found at § 648.52(f). Finally the Exempted Fishing Permit would exempt vessels from possession limits and minimum fish size requirements specified in 50 CFR part 648, subsections B and D through O, for sampling purposes and to retain any yellowtail flounder showing signs of disease for further shore side analysis.
Three dredging trips would collect and transplant roughly 10,000 to 15,000 scallops. One trip would support the 2015 project and two trips would support the proposed 2016 project. Dredging trips would be conducted utilizing a single vessel starting in March 2016 for the 2015 project, and April through May 2016 for the 2016 project if funded. The juvenile scallops would be harvested from the southeast portion of Nantucket Lightship Access Area (NLAA) to suitable sites in an alternate area of NLAA or a suitable site on Cox's Ledge. The projects define a suitable site as having currents less than 3 knots (~1 m/s) and large areas of coarse substrate preferred by scallops.
The vessel would tow two standard 15-foot (4.57-meter) wide dredges with a 4-inch (10.16-cm) ring bag for up to 10 minutes at 4.5 knots. To harvest all of the scallops, the applicant estimates they would need to complete approximately 25 tows. Once the catch is on deck, the scallops would be sorted by size class, marked with an appropriately colored reflective tape to aid with post-seeding monitoring, and stored in fish totes with a chilled seawater flow through system. All harvesting and tagging would occur during nighttime hours to reduce stress on the scallops. Once the vessel reaches the reseeding site, the vessel would anchor up to allow for a controlled placement, and researchers will lower the scallops to the ocean bottom for a targeted density of two scallops per square meter. A bottom marker would also be released with each scallop placement to locate the original site enabling researchers to note any scallop movement.
One bushel from each tow would be measured for size frequency and 15 individual scallops would be sampled for meat weights to determine shell height/meat weight ratios prior to transplanting. Any finfish caught in the dredge that show signs of abnormalities would have a small biopsy of the area
In addition to trips that will harvest and place seed scallops, there will be five trips dedicated to conducting optical surveys of the research area; two trips to determine seed placement locations, and three trips to monitor the seeding effort. Researchers would conduct each initial optical survey over the course of a day and the post seed optical surveys over seven days. The post seeding surveys would start immediately after scallop placement, and recur at each site once a day. To collect data at each of the sites, researchers would use a GAVIA AUV, and a video sled comprised of a 9.84-foot (3-m) wide beam outfitted with a battery operated camera and strobe system. The only contact with the ocean bottom would be with three 3-inch (7.62-cm) wide runners attached to the bottom of the beam. No exemptions are needed for the optical survey trips.
Regulatory exemptions are needed to allow CFF to collect scallops from a closed access area and reseed them in an open area, and without being charged days-at-sea. Exemptions are also needed to deploy dredge gear in closed access areas and retain yellowtail flounder for scientific purposes. Participating vessels need crew size waivers to accommodate science personnel and possession waivers will enable them to conduct data collection activities. We would waive the observer program notification requirements because the research activity is not representative of standard fishing activity.
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
16 U.S.C. 1801
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 March 18, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.
The meeting will be held at the Wiley Rein Conference Center, 1776 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006. Public comments may be mailed to Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4099, Washington, DC 20230 or emailed to
Bruce M. Washington, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 482-6415 or
NTIA will post a detailed agenda on its Web site,
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), through the BroadbandUSA program, in conjunction with Next Century Cities will hold a one-day regional broadband summit, “Digital Northwest,” to share information to help communities build their broadband capacity and utilization. The summit will present best practices and lessons learned from broadband network infrastructure build-outs and digital inclusion programs from the State of Washington and surrounding states, including projects funded by NTIA's Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) and State Broadband Initiative (SBI) grant programs funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
The Digital Northwest Broadband Summit will be held on March 21, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Pacific Daylight Time.
The meeting will be held at the Bell Harbor Conference Center, 2211 Alaskan Way, Pier 66, Seattle, WA 98121.
Barbara Brown, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4889, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 280-8260; email:
NTIA's BroadbandUSA program provides expert advice and field-proven tools for assessing broadband adoption, planning new infrastructure and engaging a wide range of partners in broadband projects. BroadbandUSA convenes workshops on a regular basis to bring stakeholders together to discuss ways to improve broadband policies, share best practices, and connect communities to other federal agencies and funding sources for the purpose of expanding broadband infrastructure and adoption throughout America's communities.
The Digital Northwest Broadband Summit features subject matter experts from NTIA's BroadbandUSA program and will include NTIA presentations that discuss lessons learned through the implementation of the BTOP and SBI grants. A panel will explore key elements required for successful broadband projects using a mix of regional examples. Topics will include marketing/demand aggregation, outreach, coordination with government agencies, partnership strategies, construction and oversight. A second panel will explore why broadband matters in comprehensive community planning and will provide real-world examples of how broadband applications help communities improve economic development, workforce development and education opportunities. A third panel will examine business model options, including private networks, public/private partnerships, co-ops and municipal systems. Panelists will provide tips to communities on how to research funding options, make a compelling case to funders and leverage multiple federal and state and non-profit funding streams. Community leaders interested in expanding economic development opportunities or commercial providers interested in expanding their markets, among others, should find the information presented at the summit valuable as they plan their broadband projects.
The summit will be open to the public and press. Pre-registration is required, and space is limited. Portions of the meeting will be webcast. Information on how to pre-register for the meeting and how to access the free, live webcast will be available on NTIA's Web site:
The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Barbara Brown at the contact information listed above at least five (5) business days before the meeting.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission” or “CPSC”) announces that the Commission has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of approval of a collection of information associated with the Commission's Safety Standard for Omnidirectional Citizens Band Base Station Antennas (16 CFR part 1204), approved previously under OMB Control No. 3041-0006. In the
Written comments on this request for extension of approval of information collection requirements should be submitted by March 25, 2016.
Submit comments about this request by email:
For further information contact: Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to:
CPSC has submitted the following currently approved collection of information to OMB for extension:
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) titled “National Service Criminal History Check Recordkeeping Requirement” for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling CNCS, Aaron Olszewski, at 202-606-6709 or email to
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods by March 25, 2016:
(1) By fax to: (202) 395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; and
(2) Electronically by email to:
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information,
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
A 60-day public comment Notice was published in the
The requirements will be used in the same manner as the existing application. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application is due to expire on February 29, 2016.
Defense Threat Reduction Agency, DoD.
Notice to add a new System of Records.
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency proposes to add a new system of records, HDTRA 028, entitled “AtHoc Emergency Mass-Notification System” will be used to notify the workforce quickly with information in times of emergency (snow, fire, hurricane or other unforeseen situations that cause the Fort Belvoir/McNamara Complex to be closed).
Comments will be accepted on or before March 25, 2016. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
*
LaTonya L. Small, Ed.D, Chief Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Office, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060, 703-767-1792.
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a (r)), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on February 16, 2016, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996, (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
AtHoc Emergency Mass-Notification System
Defense Threat Reduction Agency/USSTRATCOM Center for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201.
Albuquerque Operations, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 1680 Texas Street SE., Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, NM 87117-5669.
Defense Threat Reduction Agency/USSTRATCOM Center for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction (DTRA/SCC-WMD) civilian employees, military personnel, and on-site contractors.
Individual's first name, last name, work email, work phone number, mobile phone number, short message service (SMS) (texting), telephone typewriter, teletypewriter or text phone/Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TTY/TTD), personal email, home phone, and pager (one or two-way).
5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; 10 U.S.C. 136, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; DoD Directive 5124.02, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R); DoD Instruction 3020.42, Defense Continuity Plan Development; DoD Instruction 3020.52, DoD Installation Chemical, Biological, Radiological,
To notify the workforce quickly with information in times of emergency (snow, fire, hurricane or other unforeseen situations that cause the Fort Belvoir/McNamara Complex to be closed).
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD blanket routine uses can be found online at:
Electronic storage media.
First and last name of employee or individual.
Records are maintained in a controlled facility. Records are accessible only to authorized persons with a need-to-know who are properly screened, cleared, and trained. The system will maintain a role based access, Government Common Access Card (CAC) and associated Personal Identification Number (PIN) in addition to user identification and password for system access.
Disposition pending until the National Archives and Records Administration approve retention and disposal schedule, records will be treated as permanent.
Operations Integration Branch Chief, Defense Threat Reduction Agency/USSTRACTOM Center for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the DTRA/SCC-WMD, Chief, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Office, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201.
For verification purposes, individual should provide their full name, dates and locations they were employed or assigned to DTRA/SCC-WMD, and any details which may assist in locating records. In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the DTRA/SCC-WMD, Chief, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Office, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201.
For verification purposes, individual should provide their full name, dates and locations they were employed or assigned to DTRA/SCC-WMD, and any details which may assist in locating records. In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency/USSTRATCOM Center for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction rules for accessing records, for contesting contents, and appealing initial agency determinations are published in 32 CFR part 318.10 or may be obtained from the Chief, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Office.
From the individual.
None.
Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Paducah. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, March 17, 2016, 6:00 p.m.
Barkley Centre, 111 Memorial Drive, Paducah, Kentucky 42001.
Jennifer Woodard, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 1410, MS-103, Paducah, Kentucky 42001, (270) 441-6825.
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of Open Meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Wednesday, March 23, 2016; 8:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20852, (301) 822-9200.
Brenda L. May, U.S. Department of Energy; SC-26/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone: (301) 903-0536 or email:
• Perspectives from Department of Energy and National Science Foundation
• Update from the Department of Energy and National Science Foundation's Nuclear Physics Office
• Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory Overview
• Status of the Canadian Long Range Plan for Subatomic Physics
• Update from the NUPECC Chair
The NSAC Meeting will be broadcast live on the Internet. You may find out how to access the broadcast by going to the following site, prior to the start of the meeting. A video record of the meeting, including the presentations, will be archived after the meeting ends at the following link:
The minutes of the meeting will be available for review on the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Physics Web site at
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee under Section 9008(d) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that agencies publish these notices in the
March 8, 2016, 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., March 9, 2016, 8:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Renaissance Arlington Capital View Hotel, 2800 South Potomac Ave., Arlington, VA 2202.
Elliott Levine, Designated Federal Official for the Committee, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; Email:
• Update on USDA Biomass R&D Activities
• Update on DOE Biomass R&D Activities
• Update the Biomass Research and Development Initiative
• Overview of DOE Bioenergy Technologies Office 2016 Budget, New Areas, and Activities
• Overview of 2016 Budget, New Areas, and Activities for USDA NIFA and ARS
• Presentation on the Biomass related ARPA-E activities
On December 22, 2015, the Energy Resources USA Inc. filed an application for a preliminary permit under section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act proposing to study the feasibility of the proposed William H. Harsha Lake Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 14747-000, to be located at the existing William H. Harsha Lake Dam on the East Fork of Little Miami River, near the City of Batavia, in Clermont County, Ohio. The William H. Harsha Lake Dam is owned by the United States government and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The proposed project would consist of: (1) A new 16-foot by 7.5-foot by 9-foot concrete conduit fitted with a 7-foot by 8-foot discharge gate; (2) a new 210-foot-long, 6-foot-diameter steel penstock fitted with a butterfly valve; (3) a new 65-foot by 45-foot reinforced concrete powerhouse containing two 1.4-megawatt (MW) horizontal Francis turbine-generators having a total combined generating capacity of 2.8 MW; (4) a new 90-foot-long by 60-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a new 45-foot-long by 30-foot-wide substation; (6) a new 1-mile-long, 69-kilovolt transmission line; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an estimated annual generation of 8.24 gigawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 Days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
On May 15, 2015, Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI) filed an application in Docket No. CP15-492-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Leidy South Project (Project), and would provide an incremental 155 MMcf per day of firm transportation service in the Mid-Atlantic region and to meet the need of increasing demand for natural gas at existing and new power generation facilities.
On May 27, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
DTI proposes the following facilities in Pennsylvania to replace two 1,100 horsepower (hp) compressor units with one 10,915 hp unit at the Finnefrock Compressor Station in Clinton County; install one suction filter/separator at the Centre Compressor Station in Centre County; and install one 13,220 hp unit at the Chambersburg Compressor Station in Franklin County. DTI would also install the following facilities in Virginia, a new cooler and filter separator at the Quantico Compressor Station in Fauquier County; one 8,000 hp unit at the Leesburg Compressor Station and construct a new meter
On July 23, 2015, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (
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
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:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-725J (Definition of the Bulk Electric System).
Comments on the collection of information are due April 25, 2016.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC16-6-000) by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
Take notice that on February 18, 2016, Alan C. Richardson and Kris Chahley submitted for filing, an application for authority to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act (FPA)
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On December 22, 2015, the Energy Resources USA Inc. filed an application for a preliminary permit under section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act proposing to study the feasibility of the proposed Caesar Creek Lake Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 14749-000, to be located at the existing Caesar Creek Dam on the Caesar Creek River, near the City of Waynesville, in Warren County, Ohio. The Caesar Creek Lake Dam is owned by the United States government and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The proposed project would consist of: (1) A new 12-foot by 7.5-foot by 9-foot concrete conduit fitted with a 7-foot by 8-foot discharge gate; (2) a new 90-foot-long, 6-foot-diameter steel penstock fitted with a butterfly valve; (3) a new 65-foot by 45-foot reinforced concrete powerhouse containing two 1.4-megawatt (MW) horizontal Francis turbine-generators having a total combined generating capacity of 2.8 MW; (4) a new 200-foot-long by 60-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a new 45-foot-long by 30-foot-wide substation; (6) a new 2-mile-long, 69-kilovolt transmission line; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an estimated annual generation of 8.24 gigawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on February 18, 2016, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2015), Platte River Midstream, LLC, filed a petition for a declaratory order seeking an order approving overall tariff and rate structure for a new crude oil gathering pipeline system that will gather crude oil produced from various points in Weld County, Colorado and transport it to a central delivery point near Lucerne, Weld County, Colorado, all as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on February 17, 2016, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission), 18 CFR 385.207(2015), Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri-State) filed a petition for declaratory order finding that Tri-State's fixed cost recovery proposal contained in revised Board Policy 101 is consistent with the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 and the Commission's implementing regulaltions, as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.
Notice of Inquiry.
In this Notice of Inquiry, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) seeks comment on the need for reforms to its rules and regulations regarding the provision and compensation of primary frequency response.
Comments are due April 25, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and in accordance with the requirements posted on the Commission's Web site,
• Agency Web site: Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format, at
• Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically must mail or hand deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
1. In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), the Commission seeks comment on the need for reforms to its rules and regulations regarding the provision and compensation of primary frequency response. In recent years, the nation's electric supply portfolio has transformed to a point where fewer resources may now be providing primary frequency response than when the Commission considered this issue in other relevant proceedings. As discussed below, in light of the changing resource mix and other factors, it is reasonable to expect this trend to continue. Considering the significance of primary frequency response to the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System,
2. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether amendments to the
3. Reliably operating an Interconnection
4. Frequency response is a measure of an Interconnection's ability to arrest and stabilize frequency deviations within pre-determined limits following the sudden loss of generation or load. Frequency response is affected by the collective responses of generation and load resources throughout the entire Interconnection. Inertial response, primary frequency response, and secondary frequency response all contribute to stabilizing the Bulk-Power System by correcting frequency deviations.
5. Inertial response, or system inertia, involves the release or absorption of kinetic energy by the rotating masses of online generation and load within an Interconnection, and is the result of the coupling between the rotating masses of synchronous generation and load and the electric system.
6. Primary frequency response, net of changes in generation real power (MW) output and power consumed by load in response to a frequency deviation, is the first stage of overall frequency control, begins within seconds after the frequency changes, and is critical to the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System.
7. Secondary frequency response involves changes to the MW output of resources on automatic generation control (
8. The nation's generation resource mix is undergoing a transformation that includes the retirement of baseload, synchronous units, with large rotational inertia. The changing resource mix also includes the integration of more distributed generation, demand response, and natural gas resources, and the rapid expansion of variable energy resources (VERs)
9. During 2015, natural gas-fired generation surpassed coal as the predominant fuel source for electric generation, and is now the leading fuel type for capacity additions.
10. In addition, between 2014 and 2015, all three U.S. Interconnections have experienced growth in the installed nameplate capacity of wind and solar generation. For example, as illustrated by the figure below, NERC
11. The changing generation resource mix has the potential to reduce the inertial response within some Interconnections, as VERs do not contribute to inertia unless they are specifically designed to do so. For example, solar photovoltaic resources have no rotating mass and thus no rotational inertia. Similarly, while wind turbines have a rotating mass, power converters that interconnect modern wind turbines decouple the rotation of their turbines from the grid. As such, modern wind turbines do not contribute to the system's inertia unless specifically configured to do so.
12. In addition, VERs do not provide primary frequency response unless specifically configured to do so. Furthermore, since VERs typically have low marginal costs of production, they would likely not be dispatched in a manner necessary to provide primary frequency response, since the provision of primary frequency response involves the reservation of capacity (or “headroom”) in order for a resource to automatically increase its MW output in response to drops in system frequency. Therefore, there is a significant risk that, as conventional synchronous resources retire or are displaced by increased numbers of VERs that do not typically have primary frequency response capabilities, the net amount of frequency responsive generation online will be reduced.
13. The combined impacts of lower system inertia and lower frequency responsive capability online may adversely affect reliability during disturbances because lower system inertia results in more rapid frequency deviations during disturbances. This, in turn, may result in lower frequency nadirs, particularly if the primary frequency capability online is not sufficiently fast. This is a potential reliability concern because, as the frequency nadir lowers, it approaches the Interconnection's UFLS trip setting, which could result in the loss of load and additional generation across the Interconnection.
14. These developments and their potential impacts could challenge system operators in maintaining reliability. The Commission believes that a substantial body of evidence has emerged warranting consideration of possible actions to ensure that resources capable of providing primary frequency
15.
16. The Task Force considered the seven ancillary services
17. The reliability of the Bulk-Power System will be increasingly dependent upon the operational characteristics of natural gas and renewable generating units, as these types of resources are expected to comprise an increasing percentage of the future generation resource mix. The Task Force stated that “the reliability of the electric grid depends on the operating characteristics of the replacement resources.”
18. Contributing to the concerns associated with the nature and operational characteristics of the evolving resource mix is the uncertainty whether a resource configured to provide primary frequency response is willing and able to offer such a service when called upon to do so. While almost all existing synchronous resources and some non-synchronous resources have governors or equivalent control equipment capable of providing primary frequency response, generator owners and operators can independently decide whether units provide primary frequency response.
19. For example, at present, it is possible for a generator owner/operator to block or disable the governor or to set a wide dead band setting. A wide dead band setting can result in a unit not providing primary frequency response for most frequency deviations. As discussed more fully below, in February 2015, NERC issued an Industry Advisory which determined that a significant portion of generators within the Eastern Interconnection utilize dead bands or governor control settings that either inhibit or prevent the provision of primary frequency response.
20. NERC's State of Reliability Report for 2015 explained that the three U.S. Interconnections currently exhibit stable frequency response performance above their Interconnection Frequency Response Obligations.
21. In this proceeding, the Commission seeks comment on the need
22. In April 1996, the Commission issued Order No. 888, to address undue discrimination in transmission service by requiring all public utilities to provide open access transmission service consistent with the terms of a
23. In July 2003, the Commission issued Order No. 2003, which revised the
24. In May 2005, the Commission issued Order No. 2006, which required all public utilities to adopt standard terms and conditions for new interconnecting small generators (
25. The Commission recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise the
26. Although the Commission has previously included technical requirements for generators in the LGIA and Large Generator Interconnection Procedures (LGIP),
27. In a final rule issued on January 16, 2014, the Commission approved Reliability Standard BAL-003-1, which establishes frequency response requirements for balancing authorities.
28. Although Reliability Standard BAL-003-1 requires sufficient frequency response from balancing authorities, on average, to maintain Interconnection frequency, it does not require generators to provide primary frequency response. In the rulemaking in which the Commission approved Reliability Standard BAL-003-1, some commenters expressed concern that the standard does not address the availability of generator resources to provide primary frequency response or the premature withdrawal
29. Additionally, in Order No. 794, the Commission stated that the nature and extent of the problems that could result from the premature withdrawal of primary frequency response, and how best to address them, will be better understood after NERC and balancing authorities have more experience with Reliability Standard BAL-003-1.
30. In light of the ongoing evolution of the nation's generation resource mix, and other factors, such as NERC's Generator Governor Industry Advisory released in February 2015, the Commission believes that it is prudent to take a proactive approach to better understand the issues related to primary frequency response performance and determine what additional actions beyond Reliability Standard BAL-003-1 may be appropriate. Thus, the Commission is proceeding with a Notice of Inquiry at this time rather than waiting until NERC submits a report in 2018.
31. In the absence of national primary frequency response requirements applicable to individual generating resources, some areas, including ERCOT, ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE), and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), have implemented regional requirements for individual generating resources within their regions in order to maintain reliability.
32. For example, the Commission accepted Texas Reliability Entity Inc.'s Regional Reliability Standard BAL-001-TRE-01 (Primary Frequency Response in the ERCOT Region) as mandatory and enforceable, which places requirements on generator owners and operators with respect to the provision of primary frequency response within the ERCOT region.
33. ISO-NE requires each generator within its region with a capability of ten MW or more, including renewable resources, to operate with a functioning governor with specified dead band and droop settings, and to also ensure that the provision of primary frequency response is not inhibited by the effects of outer-loop controls.
34. PJM has
35. This section offers an overview of Commission and industry action to date related to compensation for primary frequency response. At present, there are few, if any, entities receiving compensation for selling primary frequency response as a stand-alone product, and there are no current rates applicable to sales of primary frequency response alone. However, several options for transactions involving primary frequency response have been developed. Transmission providers may sell primary frequency response service in combination with regulation service under the bundled
36. Finally, in Order No. 819, the Commission revised its regulations to foster competition in the sale of primary frequency response service.
37. The Commission seeks comment on the need for reforms to its rules and regulations regarding the provision and compensation of primary frequency response. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on possible actions to ensure that the provision of primary frequency response continues to remain at levels adequate to maintain the reliability of the Bulk-Power System in light of the ongoing transformation of the nation's generation resource mix. The Commission understands that this transformation in the nation's generation portfolio could eventually result in a reduction of system inertia and fewer generation resources with primary frequency response capabilities. In addition, as discussed above, NERC has indicated that a significant number of generators within the Eastern Interconnection utilize dead bands or governor control settings that either inhibit or prevent the provision of primary frequency response. Together, these factors could result in potential downward shifts of the frequency nadir during disturbances, closer to UFLS set points that would trigger significant widespread outages.
38. Presently, there are no
39. Within RTO/ISO markets, no current stand-alone primary frequency response product exists. Any RTO/ISO that desires to explicitly procure and compensate primary frequency response would need new tariff provisions because no RTO/ISO currently defines or procures such a product. As discussed below, the Commission seeks comment on the need for and the nature of frequency response compensation within the context of current RTO/ISO market optimization processes.
40. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on the following possible actions, discussed in more detail below: (1) Modifications to the
41. Reliability Standard BAL-003-1 and the
42. The Commission's
43. Regarding VERs, the Commission understands that in previous years, many non-synchronous resources were not consistently designed with primary frequency response capabilities. However, NERC and others have stated that VER manufacturers have made significant advancements in recent years to develop the necessary controls that would enable VERs to provide frequency response.
44. In light of the ongoing changes in the nation's resource mix as well as NERC's concerns regarding the primary frequency response performance of existing resources, the Commission seeks comment on whether and how to modify the
45. To that end, the Commission seeks comment on the following questions:
1. Should the
1.1. Install the capability necessary to provide primary frequency response?
1.2. Ensure that prime mover governors (or equivalent frequency control devices) are enabled and set pursuant to NERC's Primary Frequency Control Guideline (
1.3. Ensure that the MW response provided (when there is available headroom) in response to frequency deviations above or below the governor's dead band from 60 Hz is:
1.3.1. Sustained until system frequency returns to within the governor's dead band setting?
1.3.2. Provided without undue delay and responds in accordance with a specified droop parameter?
2. What are the costs associated with making a newly interconnecting generation resource capable of providing primary frequency response? Specifically, what are the pieces of equipment or software needed to provide primary frequency response, and what are the costs associated with those pieces of equipment or software? Are there significant differences between synchronous and non-synchronous resources in providing primary frequency response, (
3. Regarding question (1) above, are the governor control settings recommended by NERC's Primary Frequency Control Guideline the appropriate settings to include in the
4. Regarding new resources, including non-synchronous resources, are there physical, technical, or operational limitations/concerns to promptly providing sustained primary frequency response in the direction necessary to counteract under-frequency and over-frequency deviations? How should new requirements account for such limitations?
5. Are metrics or monitoring useful to evaluate whether new resources:
5.1. Operate with governors (or equivalent frequency control devices) enabled?
5.2. Set governor control settings as described in question (1) above?
5.3. Provide sustained MW response (when the unit has available headroom and system frequency deviates outside of the dead band) that is in the direction necessary to correct the frequency deviation and responsive in accordance with a specified droop parameter?
6. How would transmission providers verify that new resources provide adequate primary frequency response performance?
6.1. What information is necessary in order to facilitate performance verification?
6.2. What changes, if any, to existing infrastructure (including, but not limited to telemetry and software tools) would be required in order to verify primary frequency response performance?
6.3. What limitations based on resource type, if any, should be considered when evaluating primary frequency response performance?
7. How would transmission providers ensure compliance with the new rules?
7.1. Are penalties appropriate to ensure that new generating resources adhere to the new requirements described in question (1) above, and if so, how should such penalties be structured and implemented?
7.2. Are penalties appropriate only if a resource receives compensation for adhering to the new requirements described in question (1) above?
46. The Commission seeks comment on how it might address the issue of primary frequency response performance in existing generators. As discussed above, the Commission is considering amendments to the
47. For example, in 2010, NERC conducted a governor response survey to gain insight into governor settings from several turbine governors across the three U.S. Interconnections.
48. In February 2015, NERC issued an Industry Advisory, which expressed its determination that a significant portion of generators within the Eastern Interconnection utilize governor dead bands or other control settings that
49. Furthermore, some generating units have controls that withdraw primary frequency response prior to the initiation of secondary frequency controls, which is a significant concern in the Eastern Interconnection and a somewhat smaller issue in the Western Interconnection. These controls are known as outer-loop controls to distinguish them from more direct, lower-level control of the generator operations. Primary frequency response withdrawal occurs when outer-loop controls deliberately act to nullify a generator's governor response and return the unit to operate at a pre-disturbance scheduled MW output. This is especially problematic when it occurs prior to the activation of secondary response, and has the potential to degrade the overall response of the Interconnection and result in a frequency that declines below the original nadir. NERC has observed that early withdrawal of primary frequency response continues to occur within the Eastern Interconnection.
50. Furthermore, NERC's Resources Subcommittee has determined that the majority of gas turbines operate in some type of MW Set Point control mode.
51. As noted above, in December 2015, NERC's Operating Committee approved a Primary Frequency Control Guideline that contains recommended settings for generator governors and other plant control systems, and encourages generators within the three U.S. Interconnections to provide sustained and effective primary frequency response during major grid events in order to stabilize and maintain system frequency within allowable limits.
52. In light of the above discussion, the Commission seeks to further explore issues regarding the provision of primary frequency response by the existing generation fleet and seeks comment on the following questions:
1. Should the Commission implement primary frequency response requirements for existing resources, as discussed above for new generators? If so, what is an appropriate means of doing so (
2. As noted above, some existing generating units set dead bands wider than those recommended by NERC's Primary Frequency Control Guideline, and some units have control settings set in a manner that results in the premature withdrawal of primary frequency response. Should the Commission prohibit these practices? If so, by what means?
3. What are the costs of retrofitting existing units, including non-synchronous resources, and with specific reference to such factors as equipment types and MW capacity, to be capable of providing sustained primary frequency response?
4. Regarding existing units, are there physical, technical, or operational limitations or concerns to promptly providing sustained primary frequency response in the direction necessary to counteract under-frequency and over-frequency deviations?
53. Without the explicit requirement to provide primary frequency response or appropriate compensation for the provision of such service, resource owners may choose to disable or otherwise reduce the provision of primary frequency response from their existing resources or not install the equipment on their new resources.
54. The Commission seeks information on whether there is a need to establish or modify procurement and compensation mechanisms for primary frequency response, and whether these mechanisms will ensure that the resulting rates are just and reasonable. The Commission invites commenters to share their overall views, including the operational, technical and commercial impacts that may result from mandates to provide primary frequency response. To that end, the Commission seeks comment on the following questions:
1. Should all resources be required to provide minimum levels of: (1) Primary frequency response capability; and (2) primary frequency response performance in real-time?
1.1. “Capability” involves having a turbine governor or equivalent equipment that has the ability to sense changes in system frequency, and is enabled and set with appropriate governor settings (
1.2. “Performance” would involve putting the “capability” into actual service:
2. Is it necessary for every generating resource to install the capability necessary to provide primary frequency
2.1. To the extent that balancing authorities are responsible for procuring adequate primary frequency response service, does the current framework for blackstart provide a useful guide for how primary frequency response service could be procured?
2.2. Does the Commission's recent rulemaking allowing third-party sales of frequency response services at market based rates allow balancing authorities to procure sufficient amounts of primary frequency response as required by BAL-003-1?
2.3. To the extent that balancing authorities centrally optimize primary frequency response, wherein an algorithm optimizes in the operating horizon the set of resources in which to allocate primary frequency response headroom: Should all newly interconnecting resources be required to install the necessary capability in these areas? Can balancing authorities predict far ahead of the operating horizon the least-cost set of resources from which it will optimize the provision of primary frequency response?
2.4. Would the costs of requiring all resources to have the capability to provide primary frequency response be significantly greater than the costs that would result from an Interconnection-wide or balancing authority-wide optimization of which generators should be capable of providing primary frequency response?
2.5. Would the costs of requiring all new resources to enable and set their governors, or equivalent equipment, to be able to provide primary frequency response in real-time be significantly greater than the costs that would result from an Interconnection-wide or balancing authority-wide optimization of which generators should provide primary frequency response in real-time?
2.6. Please discuss the viability of implementing an Interconnection-wide optimization mechanism.
2.7. Would requiring every resource to be capable of providing primary frequency response result in over-procurement or inefficient investment in primary frequency response capability to the detriment of customers?
2.8. Without rules to compel performance, how would balancing authorities ensure that the optimal set of resources chosen by an optimization algorithm actually enable governor controls with appropriate governor settings so that they provide sustained primary frequency response when capacity (or “headroom”) has been reserved and frequency deviates outside of their dead band settings?
3. If generation resources were required to have minimum levels of primary frequency response capability or performance, should such resources be compensated for providing primary frequency response capability, performance, or both? If so, why? If not, why?
3.1. If payment is based on capacity (or “headroom”) that is set aside for primary frequency response, how should such a capacity payment be structured and determined?
3.2. If payment is based on actual performance, either alone or in combination with a capacity-based payment, please discuss possible rate structures applicable to primary frequency response performance.
3.3. Will a market price provide resources with sufficient incentive to invest in primary frequency response capability and make the service available to the balancing authority in real-time, absent a requirement that resources maintain the capability to provide primary frequency response and perform as required?
4. Currently, how do RTOs/ISOs ensure that they have the appropriate amount of primary frequency response capability during operations?
4.1. Are resources contracted for primary frequency response outside of the market optimization and dispatch?
4.2. Alternatively, does the market optimization and dispatch incorporate primary frequency response in its optimization?
5. Would it be appropriate for RTOs/ISOs to create a product for primary frequency response service?
5.1. Should this product be similar to a capacity product for the procurement of primary frequency response capability from resources?
5.2. Should this product be similar to other ancillary service products in which certain resources would be selected in the day-ahead or real-time markets to provide primary frequency response?
5.3. Are there benefits to co-optimizing the capacity (or “headroom”) allocated on generating units for primary frequency response with the market optimization and dispatch of RTOs/ISOs? If so, what are the challenges associated with doing so?
6. Are there benefits to separating Frequency Response Service under Schedule 3 and creating a separate ancillary service covering each individually? If so, how should a new
7. When compensating for primary frequency response, should compensation be different inside and outside of RTOs/ISOs?
8. What procurement requirements or compensation mechanisms could be used for primary frequency response from stored energy resources? When considering requirements or compensation for stored energy resources, how should possible additional costs or other concerns be addressed?
55. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments, and other information on the matters, issues and specific questions identified in this notice. Comments are due April 25, 2016. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM16-6-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.
56. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at
57. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
58. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
59. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
60. From FERC'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 excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
61. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
By direction of the Commission.
By this notice, the Commission states that in accordance to the Final Rule issued on January 17, 2013
The FY 2016 federal lands fee schedule rates have significantly increased in comparison to the FY 2015 federal lands fee schedule rates issued on January 8, 2015 for a number of hydropower projects located in multiple states/counties. In particular, hydropower projects located in the Kenai Peninsula Area of Alaska land rates increased by 71 percent in comparison to land rates assessed in FY 2015. The FY 2016 increase of per-acre land rates was mainly attributed to the increase of per-acre land and building values published in the 2012 NASS Census. The per-acre land value for land in the Kenai Peninsula Area was increased from $1,328 in the 2007 NASS Census to $2,423 in the 2012 NASS Census. This increase along with factoring in the state-specific reduction, the 50 percent encumbrance factor, and the 5.77 percent rate of return ultimately resulted in a 71 percent increase of per-acre land rates assessed to hydropower projects located in the Kenai Peninsula Area. In addition, per-acre land values for San Bernardino County located in California, Boulder and Clear Creek Counties located in Colorado, and Blaine County located in Idaho all significantly increased as a result of the 2012 published NASS Census.
Conversely, the FY 2016 federal lands fee schedule rates have significantly decreased in comparison to the FY 2015 federal lands fee schedule rates issued on January 8, 2015 for a number of hydropower projects located in other locations as a result of the decreased per-acre land values published in the 2012 NASS Census. Specifically hydropower projects occupying federal lands in Alpine, Lake, and Riverside Counties located in California, Aleutian Islands Area located in Alaska, and Grays Harbor County located in Washington will receive as much as a 37 percent decrease in comparison to the federal lands annual charges issued in FY 2015.
If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact Steven Bromberek at (202) 502-8001 or Norman Richardson at (202) 502-6219.
In an order dated November 24, 2015,
The technical conference was held on January 12, 2016. At the technical conference, staff indicated that it would establish a schedule for post-technical conference comments after reviewing the technical conference transcript. On February 9, 2016 a technical conference transcript was place in the above-referenced dockets, and a post-technical conference comment schedule was established. On February 18, 2016, an errata transcript of the February 9, 2016 transcript was placed in the dockets. The schedule for post-technical conference comments is revised accordingly.
Post-technical conference comments, not to exceed 20 pages, are due on or before March 9, 2016.
For more information about this technical conference, please contact
On February 18, 2016, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL16-27-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into the justness and reasonableness of the must-offer obligation imposed in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL16-27-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Take notice that on February 17, 2016, Robert G. Belliveau submitted for filing, an application for authority to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act (FPA)
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
a.
b.
c.
d. Submitted By: Flambeau Hydro, LLC.
e.
f.
g.
h. Potential
i.
j. Flambeau Hydro, LLC filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on December 30, 2015. Flambeau Hydro, LLC provided public notice of its request on December 23, 2015. In a letter dated February 18, 2016, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Flambeau Hydro, LLC's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402. We are also initiating consultation the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Flambeau Hydro, LLC as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section
m. Flambeau Hydro, LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (
o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. 2894. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by April 30, 2017.
p. Register online at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 25, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The information verifying construction requirement will be used by the Commission to determine whether the licensee has met the 900 MHz MTA construction requirements. Information will be submitted on FCC Form 601 (OMB Control No. 3060-0798) electronically.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of an existing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). On December 15, 2015, (80 FR 77630), the FDIC requested comment for 60 days on a proposal to renew the information collections described below. No comments were received. The FDIC hereby gives notice of its plan to submit to OMB a request
Comments must be submitted on or before March 25, 2016.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Gary A. Kuiper or Manuel E. Cabeza, at the FDIC address above.
Proposal to renew the following currently-approved collections of information:
1.
2.
a. FDIC-Supervised Institutions with Assets of $1 Billion or More.
b. FDIC-Supervised Institutions with Assets of $500 Million or More but Less than $1 Billion.
c. FDIC-Supervised Institutions with Assets Less than $500 Million.
3.
Section 324.203(a)(1) requires FDIC-supervised institutions to have clearly defined policies and procedures for determining which trading assets and trading liabilities are trading positions and specifies the factors a FDIC-supervised institutions must take into account in drafting those policies and procedures. Section 324.203(a)(2) requires FDIC-supervised institutions to have clearly defined trading and hedging strategies for trading positions that are approved by senior management and specifies what the strategies must articulate. Section 324.203(b)(1) requires FDIC-supervised institutions to have clearly defined policies and procedures for actively managing all covered positions and specifies the minimum requirements for those policies and procedures. Sections 324.203(c)(4) through 324.203(c)(10) require the annual review of internal models and specify certain requirements for those models. Section 324.203(d) requires the internal audit group of a FDIC-supervised institution to prepare an annual report to the board of directors on the effectiveness of controls supporting the market risk measurement systems.
Section 324.204(b) requires FDIC-supervised institutions to conduct quarterly backtesting. Section 324.205(a)(5) requires institutions to demonstrate to the FDIC the appropriateness of proxies used to capture risks within value-at-risk models. Section 324.205(c) requires institutions to develop, retain, and make
Section 324.207(b)(1) details requirements applicable to a FDIC-supervised institution when the FDIC-supervised institution uses internal models to measure the specific risk of certain covered positions. Section 324.208 requires FDIC-supervised institutions to obtain prior written FDIC approval for incremental risk modeling. Section 324.209(a) requires prior FDIC approval for the use of a comprehensive risk measure. Section 324.209(c)(2) requires FDIC-supervised institutions to retain and report the results of supervisory stress testing. Section 324.210(f)(2)(i) requires FDIC-supervised institutions to document an internal analysis of the risk characteristics of each securitization position in order to demonstrate an understanding of the position. Section 324.212 requires quarterly quantitative disclosures, annual qualitative disclosures, and a formal disclosure policy approved by the board of directors that addresses the approach for determining the market risk disclosures it makes.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Notice.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has adjusted the cap on average total assets that defines a “Community Financial Institution” to $1,128,000,000, based on the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) as published by the Department of Labor (DOL). These changes took effect on January 1, 2016.
Kaitlin Hildner, Division of Federal Home Loan Bank Regulation, (202) 649-3329,
The Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) confers upon insured depository institutions that meet the statutory definition of a “Community Financial Institution” (CFI) certain advantages over non-CFI insured depository institutions in qualifying for Federal Home Loan Bank (Bank) membership, and in the purposes for which they may receive long-term advances and the collateral they may pledge to secure advances.
As of January 1, 2016, FHFA has increased the CFI asset cap from $1,123,000,000 to $1,128,000,000, which reflects a 0.5 percent increase in the unadjusted CPI-U from November 2014 to November 2015. The new amount was obtained by rounding to the nearest million, as has been the practice for all prior adjustments. Consistent with the practice of other Federal agencies, FHFA bases the annual adjustment to the CFI asset cap on the
In calculating the CFI asset cap, FHFA uses CPI-U data that have not been seasonally adjusted (
Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (Commission) by KSB Shipping & Logistics LLC, hereinafter “Complainant,” against Direct Container Line aka Vanguard Logistics, hereinafter “Respondent.” Complainant states that it is a non-vessel-operating common carrier (NVOCC) and freight forwarder licensed by the Commission and a New Jersey corporation. Complainant alleges that Respondent is an NVOCC licensed by the Commission.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has violated section 10(d)(1) of the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. 41102(c), in connection with a shipment made as agents for shippers Risona Incorporated and Bracha Export Corp DBA Continental, and consolidator R&A International Logistics Incorporated. Complainant alleges that “Cargo Partner Austria who were the agents of Vanguard Logistics in Europe released the delivery order to the consignees broker Cargo Clearing GMBH Austria without the latter presenting the Original Bill of lading and also despite the fact that the shipment was on hold status and despite the fact that Vanguard Logistics representative had given the assurance in writing to us that the shipment will be on hold.” Complainant seeks reparations of $191,110 plus interest and attorney's fees.
The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's Electronic Reading Room at
This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judges. The initial decision of the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by February 13, 2017, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by August 18, 2017.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 21, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can also be sent electronically to
1.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
Notice of availability, and request for comments.
This notice, prepared by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) for the Department of Defense, announces the availability of two new draft toxicological profile on unregulated hazardous substances for review and comment. All toxicological profiles issued as “Drafts for Public Comment” represent ATSDR's best efforts to provide important toxicological information on priority hazardous substances. We are seeking public comments and additional information or reports on studies about the health effects of Jet Fuels and 1-Bromopropane for review and potential inclusion in the profile. ATSDR remains committed to providing a public comment period for these documents as a means to best serve public health and our clients.
Comments can include additional information or reports on studies about the health effects of Jet Fuels and 1-Bromopropane. Although ATSDR will consider key studies for these substances during the profile development process, this
Written comments on the draft Toxicological Profiles must be received on or before May 24, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number ATSDR-2016-0003, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Delores Grant, Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1600 Clifton Rd. NE., MS F-57, Atlanta, GA 30329. Phone: (800) 232-4636 or 770-488-3351.
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-499) amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). Section 211 of SARA also amended Title 10 of the U.S. Code, creating the Defense Environmental Restoration Program. Section 2704(a) of Title 10 of the U.S. Code directs the Secretary of Defense to notify the Secretary of HHS of not less than 25 of the most commonly found unregulated hazardous substances at defense facilities. The Secretary of HHS is to prepare toxicological profiles of these substances. Each profile is to include an examination, summary, and interpretation of available toxicological information and epidemiologic evaluations. This information is used to ascertain the level of significant human exposure for the substance and the associated health effects. The toxicological profile includes a determination of whether adequate information on the health effects of each substance is available or is in the process of being developed. When adequate information is not available, ATSDR, in cooperation with the National Toxicology Program (NTP), may plan a program of research designed to determine these health effects.
Although a number of key studies for this substance were identified and evaluated during the draft profile development process, this
The Toxicological Profiles for Jet Fuels and 1-Bromopropane are available online at
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Quarantine Station Illness Response Forms: Airline, Maritime, and Land/Border Crossing (OMB Control No. 0920-0821; expires 04/30/2016)—Revision—Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, National Center for Emerging Zoonotic and Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC is requesting approval for a revision to this existing information collection with the intent of ensuring that CDC can continue and improve the collection of pertinent information related to communicable disease or deaths that occur aboard conveyances during travel within the United States and into the United States from a foreign country, as authorized under 42 Code of Federal Regulations part 70 and 71, respectively.
Concerning routine operations, CDC is adjusting its estimates of respondents and burden associated with the use of the Air Travel, Maritime Conveyance, and Land Travel Illness or Death Investigation forms.
• CDC is requesting an increase in the number of respondents to the Air Travel Illness or Death Investigation form, from 1,626 respondents to 1,800. This results in an additional 14 hours of burden per year.
• CDC is requesting fewer respondents to the Maritime Conveyance Illness or Death Investigation Form, from 1,873 to 750 reports. This results in a decrease of 93 hours.
• CDC is requesting a decrease in the number of respondents to the Land Travel Illness or Death Investigation form, from 259 respondents to 100. This results in a decrease of 14 hours.
Also included are changes to account for the end of the entry risk assessment program for travelers entering the United States from the formerly Ebola affected countries. Responses to the United States Travelers Health Declaration and the Ebola Entry Risk Assessment Forms, including the Ill Traveler version, are no longer required for these travelers; therefore, CDC is requesting to remove these forms from this information collection. The changes are as follows:
• CDC is requesting the removal of 49,238 respondents to the United States Travel Health Declaration (English: Hard Copy, fillable PDF, electronic portal), resulting in a decrease of 12,310 burden hours.
• CDC is requesting the removal of 1,586 respondents to the United States Travel Health Declaration (French translation guide), with a decrease 397 burden hours.
• CDC is requesting the removal of 176 respondents for the United States Travel Health Declaration (Arabic translation guide), with a decrease of 44 burden hours.
The changes for the Ebola Risk Assessment Form are as follows:
• CDC is requesting the removal of 3,447 respondents to the Ebola Risk Assessment Form (English hard copy), and an associated decrease of 862 burden hours.
• CDC is requesting the removal of 111 respondents to the Ebola Risk Assessment French translation guide and a decrease of 28 burden hours.
• CDC is requesting the removal of 13 respondents to the Ebola Risk Assessment Arabic translation guide, and 3 fewer burden hours.
• CDC is requesting the removal of the Ebola Entry Screening Risk Assessment (Ill Traveler Interview), which decreases the number of respondents by 100 and the burden by 25 hours.
• CDC is requesting the removal of 49,238 respondents to the IVR Active Monitoring Survey (English: Recorded), with 68,933 fewer burden hours.
• CDC is requesting the removal of 1,586 respondents to the IVR Active Monitoring Survey (French: Recorded) with a decrease of 2,220 hours of burden.
These adjustments and changes result in a decrease of 85,161 burden hours.
CDC requests a total of 2,650 respondents and 221 burden hours annually. The respondents to these information collections are travelers and ship medical personnel. There is no cost to respondents other than the time required to provide the information requested.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on the Study to Explore Early Development (SEED) Phase 3.
Written comments must be received on or before April 25, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0021 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 6501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of the information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. 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 of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Study to Explore Early Development 3 (SEED 3)—New—National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are a group of neurodevelopmental disorders characterized by qualitative impairments in social interaction and communication and stereotyped behaviors and interests. Recent systematic population surveys and routine monitoring systems in the U.S. and other countries indicate the prevalence to be 1% to 2%. Apart from the identification of some rare genetic conditions that are commonly associated with autism, causal mechanisms for the disorder largely remain unknown.
The Children's Health Act of 2000 mandated CDC to establish autism surveillance and research programs to address the number, incidence, and causes of autism and related developmental disabilities. Under the provisions of this act, NCBDDD funded five Centers for Autism and Developmental Disabilities Research and Epidemiology (CADDRE) through program announcements in FY2001 and FY2002 (California, Colorado, Maryland, North Carolina and Pennsylvania); CDC's NCBDDD served as the sixth CADDRE site.
For the first funding cycle (2001-2006), each CADDRE grantee had three core objectives: To develop a protocol for a multi-site collaborative epidemiologic study focused on autism (which was eventually named the Study to Explore Early Development [SEED]); to conduct surveillance of autism and other developmental disabilities; and to conduct site-specific investigator-initiated studies on autism. In FY 2006, through a second CADDRE funding cycle, five grantees were awarded. The CADDRE activities for the second funding cycle (2006-2011) were limited to implementation of the first phase of SEED (subsequently known as SEED 1). CDC served as the sixth CADDRE SEED 1 site during this period. A second phase of SEED (SEED 2) was funded under a third funding cycle (2011—currently ongoing with completion in 2016). Five CADDRE grantees received the awards. Again, CDC served as the sixth SEED 2 site.
Four extramural sites plus the CDC site will implement the SEED 3 collaborative protocol. The SEED 3 protocol for identification of study participants, recruitment, and study data collection flow will be very similar to the protocols for SEED 1 and 2.
Modifications that will be implemented in the third round of data collection include recruitment from a more recent cohort of children, strategies to improve response rates, and a further reduction in the data collection protocol. No data collection instruments/exams used in SEED 2 will be revised in SEED 3; however, some instruments will not be retained in the protocol to reduce participant burden.
Families will be identified from each of the 3 groups: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), other developmental
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are require; to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep
1.
CMMI is authorized by Section 1115A of the Social Security Act, as established by section 3021 of the ACA and was established to “test innovative payment and service delivery models to reduce program expenditures while preserving or enhancing the quality of care furnished” to Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries. Implicit across all of CMMI activities is an emphasis on diffusion—finding and validating innovative models that have the potential to scale, facilitating rapid adoption, and letting them take root in organizations, health systems, and communities across America.
The Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) is the most comprehensive and complete survey available on the Medicare population and is essential in capturing data not otherwise collected through our operations. The MCBS is an in-person, nationally-representative, longitudinal survey of Medicare beneficiaries that we sponsor and is directed by the Office of Enterprise Data and Analytics (OEDA) in partnership with the CMMI. The survey captures beneficiary information whether aged or disabled, living in the community or facility, or serviced by managed care or fee-for-service. Data produced as part of the MCBS are enhanced with our administrative data (
The MCBS continues to provide unique insight into the Medicare program and helps CMS and our external stakeholders better understand and evaluate the impact of existing programs and significant new policy initiatives. In the past, MCBS data have been used to assess potential changes to the Medicare program. For example, the MCBS was instrumental in supporting the development and implementation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit by providing a means to evaluate prescription drug costs and out-of-pocket burden for these drugs to Medicare beneficiaries. The revision will streamline some questionnaire sections, add a few new measures, and update the wording of questions and response categories. Most of the revised questions reflect an effort to bring the MCBS questionnaire in line with other national surveys that have more current wording of questions and response categories with well-established measures. As a whole, these revisions do not change the respondent burden; there is a small increase in overall burden reflecting a program change to oversample small population groups.
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 April 25, 2016.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
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
Collecting outcomes information from the CFP graduates will allow FDA's Office of the Commissioner to easily and efficiently elicit and review information from the CFP graduates needed to collect program feedback. The process will reduce the time and cost of submitting written documentation to the Agency and lessen the likelihood of surveys being misrouted within the Agency mail system. It will assist the Agency in promoting and protecting the public health by encouraging outside persons to share their experience with the FDA while a Commissioner's Fellow.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
FDA based these estimates on the number of fellows who that have graduated and left the Agency over the past 5 years.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; request for expressions of interest.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting expressions of interest from organizations that evaluate clinical evidence used to support private payer coverage decisions for medical devices (coverage organizations) that wish to provide input to medical device developers (sponsors) on clinical trial design or other plans for gathering clinical evidence needed to support positive coverage decisions. These coverage organizations include third-party commercial health insurance organizations, payer/provider organizations, health technology assessment groups and various organizations that evaluate clinical evidence and make coverage recommendations to and decisions for private payers and health plans. The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) is taking this step to assist sponsors in identifying such organizations and soliciting clinical trial design or other evidence-gathering input from them.
If coverage organizations express interest, FDA intends to provide a mechanism for such organizations to identify themselves so that medical device sponsors who would like to obtain coverage input can voluntarily contact them to participate in a FDA Pre-Submission meeting. Early input from payers regarding their evidentiary needs can streamline the process from FDA approval or clearance to payer coverage and improve public health by facilitating earlier access to innovative, safe, and effective medical devices.
This notice will be effective February 24, 2016.
Expressions of interest should be emailed to
CDRH Innovation, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5410, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
The mission of CDRH is to protect and promote public health. This is accomplished in part by fulfilling its vision that patients in the U.S. have access to safe and effective high quality medical devices of public health importance first in the world.
In the September 17, 2010,
CDRH wishes to facilitate the voluntary inclusion, by sponsors in their Pre-Submission meetings, of those organizations that evaluate clinical evidence used to support private payer coverage determinations for medical devices (coverage organizations), so that sponsors can obtain early input from both FDA and private payers, and plan accordingly. The communications within the scope of this notice consist of input from coverage organizations to sponsors on clinical trial design or other
Timely access to innovative medical devices has been a significant issue in the delivery of high quality health care. Generally, access to medical devices first requires FDA approval or clearance for marketing, and, for broad patient access to innovative devices, coverage by payers. In this context, a “payer” refers to those organizations that may provide both coverage and reimbursement for the use of a medical device within a variety of clinical settings. They are generally third-party commercial health insurance companies, health plans, payer-provider organizations, and others.
Without proper planning, medical device sponsors developing innovating devices might encounter delays or barriers to payer coverage. Development of medical devices often occurs in a sequential manner, whereby the sponsor initially interacts with FDA to determine whether or not clinical evidence would be required in a subsequent marketing application for FDA approval or clearance. If clinical data are required, the sponsor may further interact with FDA to develop the study protocol for the pivotal clinical trial. Next, the sponsor initiates and conducts the clinical trial and then submits that clinical evidence to FDA in a premarket submission. Lastly, the FDA reviews the submission and issues a regulatory decision. It is after these steps have been completed that the sponsor may begin marketing the device; however, the clinical evidence sufficient for marketing the device is not always the same as that needed to support payer coverage decisions.
Payer evidentiary requirements for coverage depend on the payer. In some cases, payers may make their own independent coverage decisions. In other cases, payers may rely on Health Technology Assessments (HTAs) conducted by others, including CMS.
While some clinical evidence developed in a pivotal clinical trial undertaken to support FDA approval or clearance could support payer coverage decisions, outcome endpoints needed by payers, such as comparison to other therapies and the associated costs of those therapies, are often not fully collected. If the sponsor subsequently learns that these data are needed for coverage determinations, even if the data exist, it may be difficult to collect and analyze retrospectively, years after the pivotal clinical study was initiated. It is similarly challenging to conduct an additional clinical trial after FDA approval or clearance designed only to meet a payer's needs. Either situation can result in delays to coverage and broad patient access, with negative implications for the public health.
Further, it may be difficult for sponsors to identify and engage with coverage organizations, and as a result, sponsors may not consider the evidentiary needs of coverage organizations when planning their pivotal clinical study.
If coverage organizations express interest, CDRH intends to create a mechanism for such organizations to identify themselves so medical device sponsors who would like to obtain coverage input can voluntarily contact them to participate in an FDA Pre-Submission meeting. CDRH intends to list interested coverage organizations on its Web site. Sponsors who voluntarily meet with coverage organizations early in the device development process may obtain the information to initially design a clinical trial that can capture both the data necessary for FDA marketing clearance or approval and that necessary to support a positive payer coverage decision, to modify their pivotal study to satisfy both sets of requirements, or to develop other plans to collect the necessary data. This may help avoid delays to patient access that may result if clinical trials are conducted, or data are collected, sequentially when it could have been done concurrently.
Sponsors are not required to include a coverage organization in any Pre-Submission meeting. Coverage organizations are not required to submit expressions of interest in order to be included in a Pre-Submission meeting. The regulatory and evidentiary standards FDA uses for decisionmaking would not change; under any review scenario, FDA would continue to make its decisions under its authority and with its own standards, independent of the coverage organization's input.
CDRH's Pre-Submission program, by providing a forum to support communication with sponsors prior to the finalization of their clinical trial design, serves as a potential tool to facilitate sponsor communication with coverage organizations that make private coverage determinations in a manner that would promote the public health (Ref. 1). FDA is requesting that organizations that evaluate clinical evidence used to support private payer decisions for medical devices, and that may be interested in communicating to device sponsors about the evidence needed to support positive coverage determinations, send an email to
Additional information may also be posted on the CDRH Payer Communication Task Force Web site. For general questions or concerns, contact CDRH Innovation at the email listed in the
The following reference has been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see
1. FDA Guidance, “Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings with Food and Drug Administration Staff.” Available at
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than March 25, 2016.
Submit your comments, including the Information Collection Request Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at
OMB No. 0915-0324—Extension
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
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.
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 the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee and its working groups will meet to discuss various issues related to the training and fitness of merchant marine personnel. The meetings will be open to the public.
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee and its working groups are scheduled to meet on March 16, 2016, from 8 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., and the full Committee is scheduled to meet on March 17, 2016, from 8 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. Please note that these meetings may adjourn early if the Committee has completed its business.
The meetings will be held at Crowley Maritime Corporation, 1st Floor Conference Room, 9487 Regency Square Blvd., Jacksonville, FL 32225-8183 (
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the Alternate Designated Federal Officer as soon as possible.
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Committee as listed in the “Agenda” section below. Written comments for distribution to Committee members must be submitted no later than March 9, 2016, if you want the Committee members to be able to review your comments before the meeting, and must be identified by docket number USCG-2016-0082. Written comments may be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Mr. Davis Breyer, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1445, fax 202-372-8382, or
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5 United States Code Appendix.
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee was established under authority of section 310 of the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, Title 46, United States Code, section 8108, and chartered under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix). The Committee acts solely in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security through the Commandant of the Coast Guard on matters relating to personnel in the United States merchant marine, including training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards and other matters as assigned by the Commandant; shall review and comment on proposed Coast Guard regulations and policies relating to personnel in the United States merchant marine, including training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards; may be given special assignments by the Secretary and may conduct studies, inquiries, workshops, and fact finding in consultation with individuals and groups in the private sector and with State or local governments; shall advise, consult with, and make recommendations reflecting its independent judgment to the Secretary.
The agenda for the March 16, 2016 meeting is as follows:
(1) The full Committee will meet briefly to discuss the working groups' business/task statements, which are listed under paragraph 3(a)-(i) below.
(2) Public comment period.
(3) Working groups will separately address the following task statements which are available for viewing at
(a) Task Statement 30, Utilizing military education, training and assessment for the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers and U.S. Coast Guard Certifications;
(b) Task Statement 58, Communication between external stakeholders and the mariner credentialing program, as it relates to the National Maritime Center;
(c) Task Statement 81, Development of Competency Requirements for vessel personnel working Within the Polar Regions;
(d) Task Statement 87, Review of policy documents providing guidance on the implementation of the December 24, 2013 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping and Changes to National Endorsements rulemaking;
(e) Task Statement 88, Mariner occupational health risk study analysis to further develop policy guidance on mariner fitness; and
(f) Task Statement 89, Review and update of the International Maritime Organization's Maritime Safety Committee Circular MSC/Circ.1014, “Guidelines on Fatigue Mitigation and Management”;
(g) Task Statement 90, Review of IMO Model Courses Being Validated by the IMO HTW Subcommittee; and
(h) Task Statement 91, Merchant Mariner Credential Expiration Harmonization.
(4) Reports of working groups. At the end of the day, the working groups will report to the full Committee on what was accomplished in their meetings. The full Committee will not take action on these reports on this date. Any official action taken as a result of these working group meetings will be taken on day 2 of the meeting.
(5) Public comment period
(6) Adjournment of meeting.
The agenda for the March 17, 2016, full Committee meeting is as follows:
(1) Introduction;
(2) Swear in newly appointed Committee members;
(3) Remarks from Coast Guard Leadership;
(4) Designated Federal Officer announcements;
(5) Roll call of Committee members and determination of a quorum;
(6) Reports from the following working groups;
(a) Task Statement 30, Utilizing military education, training and assessment for the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers and U.S. Coast Guard Certifications;
(b) Task Statement 58, Communication between external stakeholders and the mariner credentialing program, as it relates to the National Maritime Center;
(c) Task Statement 81, Development of competency requirements for vessel personnel working within the Polar Regions;
(d) Task Statement 84, Correction of merchant mariner credentials issued with clear errors; and
(e) Task Statement 87, Review of policy documents providing guidance on the implementation of the December 24, 2013 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping and Changes to National Endorsements rulemaking.
(f) Task Statement 88, Mariner occupational health risk study analysis to further develop policy guidance on mariner fitness
(g) Task Statement 89, Review and update of International Maritime Organization's Maritime Safety Committee Circular MSC/Circ.1014, “Guidelines on Fatigue Mitigation and Management”;
(h) Task Statement 90, Review of IMO Model Courses Being Validated by the IMO HTW Subcommittee; and
(i) Task Statement 91, Merchant Mariner Credential Expiration Harmonization.
(6) Other items for discussion:
(a) Report on the Implementation of the 2010 Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping;
(b) Report on National Maritime Center activities from the National Maritime Center Commanding Officer, such as the net processing time it takes for mariners to receive their credentials after application submittal;
(c) Report on Mariner Credentialing Program Policy Division activities, such as its current initiatives and projects;
(d) Report on International Maritime Organization/International Labor Organization issues related to the merchant marine industry; and
(e) Briefings about on-going Coast Guard projects related to personnel in the U.S. merchant marine.
(7) New Business
(a) New task statement—“The Review of Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee Recommendations”;
(b) New task statement—“Electronic Chart Systems Training Requirements”; and
(c) New task statement—“Color Vision Critical Duties/Tasks for Mariners Required to Meet the Standards of 46 CFR 10.305(a) and 10.305(b)”.
(8) Public comment period.
(9) Discussion of working group recommendations. The Committee will review the information presented on each issue, deliberate on any recommendations presented by the working groups and approve/formulate recommendations for the Department's consideration. Official action on these recommendations may be taken on this date.
(10) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.
(11) Adjournment of meeting.
A public comment period will be held during each Working Group and full Committee meeting concerning matters being discussed.
Public comments will be limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Please note that the public comment periods will end following the last call for comments. Please contact Mr. Davis Breyer, listed in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Committee management; notice of federal advisory committee meeting.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) will meet via conference call on March 10 and 11, 2016. The meeting will be open to the public.
The TMAC will meet via conference call on Thursday, March 10, 2016, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), and on Friday, March 11, 2016, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST. Please note that the meeting will
For information on how to access to the conference call, information on services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance for the meeting, contact the person listed in
To facilitate public participation, members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered by the TMAC, as listed in the
•
•
•
A public comment period will be held on March 10, 2016, from 11-11:20 a.m. and March 11, 2016, from 11-11:20 a.m. EST. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to no more than two minutes. Each public comment period will not exceed 20 minutes. Please note that the public comment periods may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker by close of business on Tuesday, March 8, 2016.
Kathleen Boyer, Designated Federal Officer for the TMAC, FEMA, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 22202, telephone (202) 646-4023, and email
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.
As required by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, the TMAC makes recommendations to the FEMA Administrator on: (1) How to improve, in a cost-effective manner, the (a) accuracy, general quality, ease of use, and distribution and dissemination of flood insurance rate maps and risk data; and (b) performance metrics and milestones required to effectively and efficiently map flood risk areas in the United States; (2) mapping standards and guidelines for (a) flood insurance rate maps, and (b) data accuracy, data quality, data currency, and data eligibility; (3) how to maintain, on an ongoing basis, flood insurance rate maps and flood risk identification; (4) procedures for delegating mapping activities to State and local mapping partners; and (5)(a) methods for improving interagency and intergovernmental coordination on flood mapping and flood risk determination, and (b) a funding strategy to leverage and coordinate budgets and expenditures across Federal agencies. Furthermore, the TMAC is required to submit an Annual Report to the FEMA Administrator that contains: (1) A description of the activities of the Council; (2) an evaluation of the status and performance of flood insurance rate maps and mapping activities to revise and update Flood Insurance Rate Maps; and (3) a summary of recommendations made by the Council to the FEMA Administrator.
Further, in accordance with the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, the TMAC must develop a review report related to flood mapping in support of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (
Comments must be submitted on or before March 25, 2016.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records
This proposed information collection previously published in the
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 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: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
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,
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 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: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
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 Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 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: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
The PHA Plans informs HUD, residents, and the public of the PHA's mission for serving the needs of low, very low-income, and extremely low-income families and its strategy for addressing those needs. This information helps provide accountability to the local community for how PHAs spend their funding and implement their policies. Also, PHA plans allow HUD to monitor the performance of programs and the performance of public housing agencies that administer them.
HUD's most recent action in October 2015 was to post a version of this collection which OMB approved as a full revision incorporating public comments in 2013, and with minor changes in late 2014. Public commenters urged HUD to return to earlier multiple versions of PHA Plan templates by specific PHA type instead of a “One-Size Fits All” form. With this current proposed information collection, HUD intends to further modify the HUD-50075-5Y, HUD-50075-ST, HUD-50075-SM, HUD-50075-HCV, HUD-50075-HP templates and HUD-50077 Civil Rights, PHA Plan, Related Regulations, and Consistency with State/local Consolidated Plan certifications in the following manner as needed without a major overhaul as was done for the 2013 approval: (1) Additional instructions will be provided to PHA's planning to convert all ACC units to Project-Based Assistance under RAD resulting in the removal of all ACC units from the PHAs public housing inventory. These PHA's will be required to provide a plan for disposition of remaining public housing property, (2) Incorporating mandatory RAD information into the existing PHA Plan templates to improve, streamline, and provide clarity to the RAD significant amendment process, (3) Modify all forms as needed to reference or otherwise address the new requirements of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule published July 16, 2015, (4) Re-introduce as a submission requirement “Challenged Elements,” (5) Remove obsolete references to OMB circulars that were replaced by OMB's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements in 2 CFR 200, (6) Expand the Civil Rights certification to include equal access to all housing regardless of LGBT and marital status and prohibit inquiries made of applications or occupants concerning sexual orientation or gender identification and, (7) Replacing the 50077 form with customized versions to align with streamlined requirements of 24 CFR 903.
Finally, due to the de-coupling of Capital Fund Program activities from PHA Plan submissions, the HUD-50075.1 and HUD-50075.2 Capital Fund Annual Statement/Performance and Evaluation Report and 5-Year Action Plan forms and associated burden hours (10,070) will be removed from the approval for the PHA Plan under OMB no. 2577-0226 and added to the
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 Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 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: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in section A.
The
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.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. This information collection is scheduled to expire on February 29, 2016. We 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. However, under OMB regulations, we may continue to conduct or sponsor this information collection while it is pending at OMB.
You must submit comments on or before March 25, 2016.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Hope Grey at
(1) FWS Form 3-2326 (Federal Subsistence Hunt Application, Permit, and Report).
(2) FWS Form 3-2327 (Designated Hunter Permit Application, Permit, and Report).
(3) FWS Form 3-2328 (Federal Subsistence Fishing Application, Permit, and Report).
(4) FWS Form 3-2378 (Designated Fishing Permit Application, Permit, and Report).
(5) FWS Form 3-2379 (Federal Subsistence Customary Trade Recordkeeping Form).
We use the information collected to evaluate:
• Eligibility of applicant.
• Subsistence harvest success.
• Effectiveness of season lengths, harvest quotas, and harvest restrictions.
• Hunting patterns and practices.
• Hunter use.
The Federal Subsistence Board uses the harvest data, along with other information, to set future season dates and harvest limits for Federal subsistence resource users. These seasons and harvest limits are set to meet the needs of subsistence users without adversely impacting the health of existing animal populations.
Also included in this ICR are three forms associated with recruitment and selection of members for regional advisory councils.
(1) FWS Form 3-2321 (Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Membership Application/Nomination).
(2) FWS Form 3-2322 (Regional Advisory Council Candidate Interview).
(3) FWS Form 3-2323 (Regional Advisory Council Reference/Key Contact Interview).
The member selection process begins with the information that we collect on the application. Ten interagency review panels interview all applicants and nominees, their references, and regional key contacts. These contacts are all based on the information that the applicant provides on the application form. The information that we collect through the application form and subsequent interviews is the basis of the Federal Subsistence Board's recommendations to the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture for appointment and reappointment of council members.
In addition to the above forms, regulations at 50 CFR part 100 and 36 CFR part 242 contain requirements for the collection of information. We collect nonform information on:
(1) Repeal of Federal subsistence rules and regulations (50 CFR 100.14 and 36 CFR 242.14).
(2) Proposed changes to Federal subsistence regulations (50 CFR 100.18 and 36 CFR 242.18).
(3) Special action requests (50 CFR 100.19 and 36 CFR 242.19).
(4) Requests for reconsideration (50 CFR 100.20 and 36 CFR 242.20).
(5) Requests for permits and reports, such as traditional religious/cultural/educational permits, fishwheel permits, fyke net permits, and under-ice permits (50 CFR 100.25-27 and 36 CFR 242.25-27).
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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 OMB and us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notice of open meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure will hold a meeting on April 5, 2016, which will continue the morning of April 6, 2016, if necessary. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:
April 5-6, 2016.
Colorado Supreme Court, 2 East 14th Avenue, Conference Room C4244, Denver, CO 80203.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on August 24, 2015, Cayman Chemical Company, 1180 East Ellsworth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture reference standards for distribution to their research and forensics customers.
In reference to drug codes 7360 (marihuana) and 7370 (tetrahydrocannabinols), the company plans to bulk manufacture these drugs as synthetic. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before April 25, 2016
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on November 12, 2015, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc., 1440 Olympic Drive, Athens, Georgia 30601 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the above-listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers.
Notice of registration.
Cedarburg Pharmaceuticals, Inc. applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Cedarburg Pharmaceuticals, Inc. registration as a manufacturer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated September 16, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Cedarburg Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the above-listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers. In reference to drug code 7360, marihuana, the company plans to bulk manufacture cannabidiol as a synthetic intermediate. This controlled substance will be further synthesized to bulk manufacture a synthetic tetrahydrocannabinols (7370). No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
Notice of registration.
Chemtos, LLC applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Chemtos, LLC registration as a manufacturer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated September 16, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Chemtos, LLC to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture small quantities of the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers for use as reference standards.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before April 25, 2016.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the DEA, 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on November 12, 2015, Insys Therapeutics, Inc., 2700 Oakmont, Round Rock, Texas 78665 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the above-listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers. In reference to drug codes 7360, marihuana, and 7370, tetrahydrocannabinols, the company plans to bulk manufacture both as synthetic substances. No other activity for these drug codes is authorized for this registration.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-Day Notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office on Violence Against Women, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until March 25, 2016.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Attorney Advisor, Office on Violence Against Women, 145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 20530 (phone: 202-514-5430). Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until March 25, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Laurie O' Lena, 3750 Corporal Road, Huntsville, AL 35898 at email or telephone:
Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
Form number: 5400.29.
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Primary: Individuals.
Other: None.
Abstract: ATF is charged with the responsibility for enforcing title XI of the Organized Crime Control Act (the Act) of 1970 and the implementing regulations contained at 27 CFR part 555. Subtitle C of Public Law 107-296, the Safe Explosives Act, enacted November 25, 2003, amended the Act to give the Director authority to grant relief from disability for any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing an explosive under section 842(i) of the Act. The regulations at 27 CFR, section 555.142 state that the Director may grant relief to an applicant if it is established to the satisfaction of the Director that the circumstances regarding the disability and the applicant's record and reputation are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety. The ATF Form 5400.29, Application for Restoration of Explosives Privileges, is used by ATF to conduct background investigations on all applicants for restoration of explosives privileges. In an effort to ensure that any person applying for restoration of explosives privileges has a record and reputation such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of such relief would not be contrary to the public interest, ATF proposes that all applicants complete ATF Form 5400.29.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office on Violence Against Women, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until March 25, 2016.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Attorney Advisor, Office on Violence Against Women, 145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 20530 (phone: 202-514-5430). Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office on Violence Against Women, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Attorney Advisor, Office on Violence Against Women, 145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 20530 (phone: 202-514-5430). Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Semi-Annual Progress Report for Grantees from Grants to Enhance Culturally and Linguistically Specific Services for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking Program (Culturally and Linguistically Specific Services Program).
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: 1122-0021. U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: The affected public includes the approximately 50 grantees of the Culturally and Linguistically Specific Services Program. The program funds projects that promote the maintenance and replication of existing successful domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking community-based programs providing culturally and linguistically specific services and other resources. The program also supports the development of innovative culturally and linguistically specific strategies and projects to enhance access to services and resources for victims of violence against women.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that it will take the approximately 50 respondents (Culturally and Linguistically Specific Services Program grantees) approximately one hour to complete a semi-annual progress report. The semi-annual progress report is divided into sections that pertain to the different types of activities in which grantees may engage. A Culturally and Linguistically Specific Services Program grantee will only be required to complete the sections of the form that pertain to its own specific activities.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total annual hour burden to complete the data collection forms is 100 hours, that is 50 grantees completing a form twice a year with an estimated completion time for the form being one hour.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
CORRECTION for FR Doc. 2016-02818.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Joseph Fox, Field Operations, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Ave. NE., Washington, DC 20226 at telephone: 202-648-7117.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Notice is hereby given that, for a period of 30 days, the United States will receive public comments on a proposed Consent Decree Modification in
In this action, the United States' and the State of Indiana's Complaint filed in 2009 sought civil penalties and injunctive relief for violations of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Consent Decree Modification. 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 Consent Decree Modification may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $15.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until April 25, 2016.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Gary Schaible, Industry Liaison Analyst, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), 99 New York Ave. NE., Washington, DC 20226 at email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
Form number (if applicable): ATF Form 5320.23
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Primary: Individuals or households.
Other (if applicable): State Local or Tribal Government.
Abstract: This form is filed with ATF Form 1, 4 or 5 applications when the applicant, maker, or transferee is other than an individual or government agency. This allows ATF to conduct background checks of persons who make, acquire, or possess firearms.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the Aeronautics Committee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the aeronautics community and other persons, research and technical information relevant to program planning.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016, 8:30 a.m.—4:30 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, Room 6E40, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546.
Ms. Irma Rodriguez, Executive Secretary for the NAC Aeronautics Committee, Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0984, or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. Any person interested in participating in the meeting by WebEx and dial-in teleconference should contact Ms. Irma Rodriguez at (202) 358-0984 for the web link, toll-free number and passcode. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92-463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Standard review plan-draft section revision; reopening of comment period.
On August 10, 2015, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) solicited comments on the draft NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition,” Section 18.0, “Human Factors Engineering.” The public comment period closed on October 9, 2015. The NRC has decided to reopen the public comment period to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments and to hold a public meeting concerning the Standard Review Plan (SRP), Section 18.0.
The comment period for the document published on August 10, 2015 (80 FR 47958), has been reopened. Comments should be filed no later than
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: O12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Mark D. Notich, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3053, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0187 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0187 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
On August 10, 2015, the NRC solicited comments on the draft revision of NUREG-0800, revision 3 of SRP Section 18.0, “Human Factors Engineering.” The public comment period originally closed on October 9, 2015 (80 FR 47958). Due to requests from the public for an extension of the comment period and a request for a public meeting with the staff concerning questions and comments about SRP Section 18.0, the staff is re-opening the comment period for SRP Section 18.0 until March 11, 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “Operators' Licenses.”
Submit comments by March 25, 2016.
Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Vlad Dorjets, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0018), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202-395-7315, email:
Brenda Miles, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7884; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0218 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “10 CFR part 55, Operators' Licenses.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material.”
Submit comments by March 25, 2016.
Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Vlad Dorjets, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0008), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202-395-7315, email:
Brenda Miles, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7884; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0118 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
• Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
•
•
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, 10 CFR part 71, “Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 187 negotiated service agreement to the competitive product list. 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.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 through 3020.35, the Postal Service filed a formal request and associated supporting information to add Priority Mail Contract 187 to the competitive product list.
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-79 and CP2016-104 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 187 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than February 26, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-79 and CP2016-104 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Curtis E. Kidd is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than February 26, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 188 negotiated service agreement to the competitive product list. 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.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30-.35, the Postal Service filed a formal request and associated supporting information to add Priority Mail Contract 188 to the competitive product list.
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-80 and CP2016-105 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 188 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39
The Commission appoints Natalie R. Ward to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-80 and CP2016-105 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Natalie R. Ward is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than February 26, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of First-Class Package Service Contract 44 negotiated service agreement to the competitive product list. 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.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30-.35, the Postal Service filed a formal request and associated supporting information to add First-Class Package Service Contract 44 to the competitive product list.
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-82 and CP2016-107 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed First-Class Package Service Contract 44 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than February 26, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Jennaca D. Upperman to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-82 and CP2016-107 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Jennaca D. Upperman is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than February 26, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of First-Class Package Service Contract 43 negotiated service agreement to the competitive product list. 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.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30-.35, the Postal Service filed a formal request and associated supporting information to add First-Class Package Service Contract 43 to the competitive product list.
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-81 and CP2016-106 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed First-Class Package Service Contract 43 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than February 26, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-81 and CP2016-106 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth R. Moeller is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than February 26, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
By letter dated February 18, 2016 (the “Letter”), as supplemented by conversations with the staff of the Division of Trading and Markets, counsel for WisdomTree Trust (the “Trust”) on behalf of the Trust, WisdomTree Put Write Strategy Fund (the “Fund”), any national securities exchange on or through which shares issued by the Fund (“Shares”) may subsequently trade, and persons or entities engaging in transactions in Shares (collectively, the “Requestors”), requested exemptions, or interpretive or no-action relief, from Rule 10b-17 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M, in connection with secondary market transactions in Shares and the creation or redemption of aggregations of Shares of 50,000 shares (“Creation Units”).
The Trust is registered with the Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (“1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Fund seeks to track the performance of an underlying index, the CBOE S&P 500 Put Write Index (“Index”). The Index is based on a passive investment strategy which consists of overlapping hypothetical investments in a single series of exchange-listed S&P 500 Index options (“SPX Puts”) over a money market account hypothetically invested in one and three-month Treasury bills. Specifically, the Index hypothetically writes at-the-money SPX Puts on a monthly basis, usually on the third Friday of the month (
In order to track the Index, under normal circumstances, as described in the Letter, the Fund will invest not less than 80% of its assets in SPX Puts and one and three month U.S. Treasury bills. The Fund may invest up to 20% of its net assets (in the aggregate) in other investments, as described in the Letter, that are not included in the Index, but which WisdomTree Asset Management, Inc. (“Adviser”) or Mellon Capital Management (“Sub-Adviser”) believes will help the Fund to track the Index and that will be disclosed at the end of each trading day (“Other Assets').
The Requestors represent, among other things, the following:
• Shares of the Fund will be issued by the Trust, an open-end management investment company that is registered with the Commission;
• Creation Units will be continuously redeemable at the net asset value (“NAV”) next determined after receipt
• Shares of the Fund will be listed and traded on an Exchange;
• The Fund seeks to replicate the performance of the Index, all the components of which have publicly available last sale trade information;
• The intra-day indicative value of the Fund per share and the intra-day value of the Index will be publicly disseminated every 15 seconds throughout the trading day through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association;
• On each business day before commencement of trading in Shares on the Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the identities and quantities of the Fund's options positions as well as Other Assets held by the Fund that will form the basis for the calculation of the Fund's NAV at the end of the business day;
• The Exchange or other market information provider will disseminate every 15 seconds throughout the trading day through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association an amount representing on a per-share basis, the current value of the cash to be deposited as consideration for the purchase of Creation Units;
• The arbitrage mechanism will be facilitated by the transparency of the Fund's portfolio and the availability of the intra-day indicative value, the liquidity of securities and Other Assets held by the Fund, the ability to access the options sold by the Fund, as well as arbitrageurs' ability to create workable hedges;
• The Fund will invest solely in liquid securities;
• The options sold by the Fund will facilitate an effective and efficient arbitrage mechanism and the ability to create workable hedges;
• The Requestors expect arbitrageurs to be able to take advantage of price variations between the Fund's market price and its NAV; and
• A close alignment between the market price of Shares and the Fund's NAV is expected.
While redeemable securities issued by an open-end management investment company are excepted from the provisions of Rule 101 and 102 of Regulation M, the Requestors may not rely upon that exception for the Shares.
Generally, Rule 101 of Regulation M is an anti-manipulation rule that, subject to certain exceptions, prohibits any “distribution participant” and its “affiliated purchasers” from bidding for, purchasing, or attempting to induce any person to bid for or purchase any security which is the subject of a distribution until after the applicable restricted period, except as specifically permitted in the rule. Rule 100 of Regulation M defines “distribution” to mean any offering of securities that is distinguished from ordinary trading transactions by the magnitude of the offering and the presence of special selling efforts and selling methods. The provisions of Rule 101 of Regulation M apply to underwriters, prospective underwriters, brokers, dealers, or other persons who have agreed to participate or are participating in a distribution of securities. The Shares are in a continuous distribution and, as such, the restricted period in which distribution participants and their affiliated purchasers are prohibited from bidding for, purchasing, or attempting to induce others to bid for or purchase extends indefinitely.
Based on the representations and facts presented in the Letter, particularly that the Trust is a registered open-end management investment company, that Creation Unit size aggregations of the Shares of the Fund will be continuously redeemable at the NAV next determined after receipt of a request for redemption by the Fund, and that a close alignment between the market price of Shares and the Fund's NAV is expected, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors to grant the Trust an exemption under paragraph (d) of Rule 101 of Regulation M with respect to the Fund, thus permitting persons participating in a distribution of Shares of the Fund to bid for or purchase such Shares during their participation in such distribution.
Rule 102 of Regulation M prohibits issuers, selling security holders, and any affiliated purchaser of such person from bidding for, purchasing, or attempting to induce any person to bid for or purchase a covered security during the applicable restricted period in connection with a distribution of securities effected by or on behalf of an issuer or selling security holder.
Based on the representations and facts presented in the Letter, particularly that the Trust is a registered open-end management investment company, that Creation Unit size aggregations of the Shares of the Fund will be continuously redeemable at the NAV next determined after receipt of a request for redemption by the Fund, and that a close alignment between the market price of Shares and the Fund's NAV is expected, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors to grant the Trust an exemption under paragraph (e) of Rule 102 of Regulation M with respect to the Fund, thus permitting the Fund to redeem Shares of the Fund during the continuous offering of such Shares.
Rule 10b-17, with certain exceptions, requires an issuer of a class of publicly traded securities to give notice of certain specified actions (for example, a dividend distribution) relating to such class of securities in accordance with Rule 10b-17(b). Based on the representations and facts in the Letter, and subject to the conditions below, we find that it is appropriate in the public interest, and consistent with the protection of investors to grant the Trust a conditional exemption from Rule 10b-17 because market participants will receive timely notification of the existence and timing of a pending distribution, and thus the concerns that the Commission raised in adopting Rule 10b-17 will not be implicated.
This exemptive relief is subject to the following conditions:
• The Trust will comply with Rule 10b-17 except for Rule 10b-17(b)(1)(v)(a) and (b); and
• The Trust will provide the information required by Rule 10b-17(b)(1)(v)(a) and (b) to the Exchange as soon as practicable before trading begins on the ex-dividend date, but in no event later than the time when the Exchange last accepts information relating to distributions on the day before the ex-dividend date.
This exemptive relief is subject to modification or revocation at any time the Commission determines that such action is necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. Persons relying upon this exemptive relief shall discontinue transactions involving the Shares of the Fund, pending presentation of the facts for the Commission's consideration, in the event that any material change occurs with respect to any of the facts or representations made by the Requestors and, consistent with all preceding letters, particularly with respect to the close alignment between the market price of Shares and the Fund's NAV. In addition, persons relying on this exemption are directed to the anti-fraud and anti-manipulation provisions of the Exchange Act, particularly Sections 9(a) and 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Responsibility for compliance with these and any other applicable provisions of the federal securities laws must rest with the persons relying on this exemption. This order should not be considered a view with respect to any other question that the proposed transactions may raise, including, but not limited to the adequacy of the disclosure concerning, and the applicability of other federal or state laws to, the proposed
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 341A(a)(4) to provide for web-based delivery of the Exchange's continuing education (“CE”) program. The proposed rule change would phase out the current option of completing the Regulatory Element in a test center, delete the current option for in-house delivery of the Regulatory Element of the CE program and also delete the existing text of Rule 341A(a)(4). The Exchange's proposal is materially similar to a recent FINRA filing to amend FINRA Rule 1250, which was recently approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
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 CE requirements under Rule 341A consist of a Regulatory Element
Rule 341A(a)(1) provides that the following Regulatory Elements administered by FINRA shall be required: The S201 for registered principals and supervisors; the S106 for persons registered only as Investment Company Products/Variable Contracts Limited Representatives; and the S101 for all other registered persons. Currently, the Regulatory Element may be administered in a test center or in-firm subject to specified procedures.
Currently, most registered persons complete the Regulatory Element in a test center rather than in-firm. Given the advances in Web-based technology, the Exchange believes that there is diminishing utility in the test center and in-firm delivery methods. Moreover, according to FINRA,
Based on the recent amendments to FINRA Rule 1250,
The first phase of the Web-based delivery system was launched October 1, 2015 and includes the Regulatory Element of the S201 for registered principals and supervisors. The second phase of the Web-based delivery system was launched January 4, 2016 and includes the Regulatory Element of the S101 for all registered persons, including, but not limited to Securities Traders. The Exchange is proposing to phase out test-center delivery by no later than six months after January 4, 2016. Registered persons will continue to have the option of completing the Regulatory Element in a test center, but they will be required to use the Web-based system after the test-center delivery is phased out.
Further, the Exchange is proposing to eliminate the current option for in-firm delivery and is deleting the current text of Rule 341A(a)(4) relating to in-firm delivery of the Regulatory Element of the CE programs. The proposed Web-based delivery method will provide registered persons the flexibility to complete the Regulatory Element at a location of their choosing, including their private residence, at any time during their 120-day window for completion of the Regulatory Element.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will improve members' compliance efforts and will allow registered persons to spend a greater amount of time on the review of CE materials and potentially achieve better learning outcomes, which will in turn enhance investor protection. Further, while the proposed rule change will provide more flexibility to members and registered persons, it will maintain the integrity of the Regulatory Element of the CE program and the CE program in general.
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)
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as it will allow registered persons to immediately complete the Regulatory Element of the Exchange's continuing education requirement through the more flexible Web-based delivery method. Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
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”)
FINRA is proposing to require registration as Securities Traders of associated persons primarily responsible for the design, development or significant modification of algorithmic trading strategies, or who are responsible for the day-to-day supervision or direction of such activities.
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.
NASD Rule 1032(f) (the “Rule”) generally provides that each person associated with a member included within the definition of a representative must register with FINRA as a Securities Trader if, with respect to transactions in equity, preferred or convertible debt securities effected otherwise than on a securities exchange, such person is engaged in proprietary trading, the execution of transactions on an agency basis, or the direct supervision of such activities.
Given the prevalence of use of algorithmic trading strategies by members, and the resultant significant role such systems play in today's markets, FINRA proposes that associated persons primarily responsible for the design, development or significant modification of algorithmic trading strategies (or responsible for the day-to-day supervision or direction of such activities) be required to register as Securities Traders with FINRA and, thus, required to pass the requisite qualification examination and be subject to the same continuing education requirements as are applicable to individual securities traders. FINRA is concerned that problematic conduct stemming from algorithmic trading strategies, such as failure to check for order accuracy, inappropriate levels of messaging traffic, wash sales, failure to mark orders as “short” or perform proper short sale “locates,” and inadequate risk management controls, could be reduced or prevented, in part, through improved education regarding securities regulations for the specified individuals involved in the algorithm design and development process.
For purposes of the proposal, an “algorithmic trading strategy” is an automated system that generates or routes orders or order-related messages such as routes or cancellations, but does not include an automated system that solely routes orders received in their entirety to a market center. As markets change, the scope of what would be considered an algorithmic trading strategy will continue to evolve as new trading strategies are designed and developed.
For example, FINRA has observed the following types of automated systems that would be included within the proposed definition of “algorithmic trading strategy:”
• An arbitrage strategy, such as index or exchange-traded fund (ETF) arbitrage;
• A hedging or loss-limit algorithmic strategy that generates orders on an automated basis;
• A strategy that involves simultaneously trading of two or more correlated securities due to the divergence in their prices or other trading attributes;
• An order generation, routing and execution program used for large-sized orders that involve dividing the order into smaller-sized orders less likely to result in market impact;
• An order routing strategy used to determine the price or size for routed orders, the use of “parent” or “child” orders, or displayed versus non-displayed trading interest;
• A trading strategy that becomes more or less aggressive to correlate with trading volume in specified securities;
• A trading strategy that generates orders based on moving reference prices;
• A trading strategy that minimizes intra-day slippage in connection with achieving volume-weighted average prices and time-weighted average prices; and
• A strategy that creates or liquidates baskets of securities, including those that track indexes or ETFs.
The above is not an exhaustive list of the types of automated functionality that will be deemed an “algorithmic trading strategy” under the proposal. FINRA expects that members will register associated persons primarily responsible for the design, development or significant modification of automated programs (and day-to-day supervision or direction of such activities) that generate orders into the marketplace or execute trades without material intervention by any person. While NASD Rule 1032(f) currently is limited to activity effected otherwise than on a securities exchange, the proposed registration requirement applies to orders and order related messages whether ultimately routed (or sent to be routed) to an exchange or over the counter.
For the purpose of this proposal, an order router alone would not constitute an algorithmic trading strategy; for example, a standard order router that routes retail orders in their entirety to a particular market center for handling and execution would not be considered an algorithmic trading strategy. If an order router performs any additional
FINRA developed the proposed registration requirement to address concerns around the role of algorithmic trading strategies in problematic marketplace conduct by member firms. Pursuant to the proposal, associated persons primarily responsible for the design, development or significant modification
FINRA notes that, even in cases where a modification is not significant and, therefore, would not be required to be performed by a registered Securities Trader pursuant to this proposal, as stated in
While workflows, structures and roles may differ across members, in proposing this amendment, FINRA seeks to ensure that members identify and register associated persons primarily responsible for the design, development or significant modification of algorithmic trading strategies (or responsible for the day-to-day supervision or direction of such activities). In establishing this requirement, FINRA seeks to ensure that one or more associated persons that possess knowledge of, and responsibility for, both the design of the intended trading strategy (
For example, if a sole associated person determines the design of the trading strategy employed by an algorithm, writes the code to effectuate such strategy, and executes or directs the modification of such code going forward, then that person alone would be required to register as a Securities Trader under the proposal.
In contrast, where a lead developer liaises with a head trader regarding the head trader's desired algorithmic trading strategy, and is primarily responsible for the supervision of the development of the algorithm to meet such objectives, such lead developer must be registered under the proposal as the associated person primarily responsible for the development of the algorithmic trading strategy and supervising or directing the team of developers. Individuals under the lead developer's supervision would not be required to register under the proposal if they are not primarily responsible for the development of the algorithmic trading strategy or are not responsible for the day-to-day supervision or direction of others on the team.
To clarify the scope of the proposed requirement, the proposed rule provides that only those persons involved in the “day-to-day” supervision or direction of the activities covered by this proposal would be required to register. Thus, each person associated with a member must register as a Securities Trader if such person is (i) primarily responsible for the design, development or significant modification of an
FINRA notes that FINRA Rule 3110(a)(2) generally requires that all registered persons be designated to an appropriately registered principal or principals with authority to carry out the supervisory responsibilities of the member for each type of business in which it engages for which registration as a broker-dealer is required. With the addition of this new activity to the Securities Trader registration category, members will be required to designate developers to a registered principal for Rule 3110(a)(2) purposes. In such instances, FINRA believes it is appropriate that members may “assign” a lead algorithm developer (or other non-trader) engaging in covered activities to one or more other registered persons of the member that supervise trading activities outside such developer's or other non-trader's usual reporting line.
While the adequacy of a member's supervisory structure must be evaluated on an individual firm basis, members are afforded a degree of flexibility in arranging for the appropriate supervision of a lead developer (or other non-trader) that engages in covered activities, such as by assigning such person to:
• A Securities Trader Principal
• A Securities Trader in the member's trading business line (
• More than one registered person, provided that the supervisor responsible for the lead algorithm developer's activities requiring registration as a Securities Trader must be registered as a Securities Trader or Securities Trader Principal.
As always, if the activities of a registered representative are assigned to be supervised by more than one registered representative or principal, the member must clearly document which activities are assigned to be supervised by each responsible party.
In some cases, an algorithmic trading strategy employed by a member may not have originated in-house and, therefore, may not have been designed or built by the member's associated persons. In cases where the design and development of an algorithmic trading strategy was performed solely by a third-party, the proposed registration requirement would not apply to the member with regard to the design or development of such algorithm. However, FINRA notes that, to the extent associated persons were involved in the design or development, or are able to significantly modify the algorithmic trading strategy in-house, such persons must be registered as Securities Traders.
A member also may engage a third-party to custom-build an algorithmic trading strategy for the member. In such cases, the associated person responsible for directing the third-party in the design, development or significant modification of the algorithmic trading strategy also would be included within the scope of this proposal and must be registered as a Securities Trader. Similarly, after the member has launched the externally built algorithm, any significant modification by the member to such algorithm must be performed by a registered Securities Trader.
FINRA notes that, irrespective of whether an algorithm is designed or developed in-house or by a third-party, the member employing the algorithm continues to be responsible for the algorithm's activities. Thus, in all cases, robust supervisory procedures, both prior to and after deployment of an algorithmic trading strategy, are a key component in protecting against problematic behavior stemming from algorithmic trading.
As noted in Item 2 of this filing, if the Commission approves the proposed rule change, FINRA will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
The prevalence of use of algorithms in the marketplace has highlighted the risks that arise when such strategies are poorly designed. FINRA has observed situations in which algorithmic trading strategies have resulted in manipulative trading activities and potential securities law violations, including of SEC Regulation NMS, SEC Regulation SHO, SEA Rule 15c3-5 and other critical market and investor protection safeguards. This proposal requires associated persons primarily responsible for the design, development or significant modification of an algorithmic trading strategy (or responsible for the day-to-day supervision or direction of such activities) to meet a minimum standard of knowledge regarding the securities rules and regulations applicable to the member employing the algorithmic trading strategy that is identical to the
FINRA believes that problematic market conduct may be reduced through improved education of firm personnel regarding securities regulations. FINRA also believes that the proposal will help clarify members' obligations with respect to FINRA's expectations regarding associated persons primarily responsible for the design, development or significant modification of algorithmic trading strategies (or responsible for the day-to-day supervision or direction of such activities). Thus, 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.
FINRA is concerned that associated persons primarily responsible for the design, development or significant modification of algorithmic trading strategies (or who are responsible for the day-to-day supervision or direction of such activities) may lack adequate knowledge regarding the securities rules and regulations applicable to FINRA members operating in the securities markets. This lack of knowledge could result in algorithms that do not comply with applicable rules. As noted above, FINRA has observed situations in which algorithmic trading strategies have resulted in manipulative trading activities and potential securities law violations. Further, FINRA notes that, under the current regulatory structure, some individuals primarily responsible for the design, development or significant modification of algorithmic trading strategies (or who are responsible for the day-to-day supervision or direction of such activities) may claim that they are not required to be aware of the firms' responsibilities under applicable securities rules and regulations. The proposed rule would close this gap in regulatory oversight.
The proposed rule change is intended to enhance investor protection by limiting the development of algorithms designed in conflict with securities rules and regulations. The proposal may also reduce uncertainty by certain market participants of their obligations. It aims to do so through a registration requirement and improved education regarding securities regulations for specified individuals involved in the algorithm design and development process.
The registration requirements for associated persons under current FINRA rules serve as an economic baseline of the proposed rule change. Currently, associated persons that solely are primarily responsible for the design, development or significant modification of an algorithmic trading strategy (or who are responsible for the day-to-day supervision or direction of such activities) are not required to register with FINRA as Securities Traders. The economic impacts of the proposal depend on the number of additional individuals that would be covered by the proposed registration requirement.
Pursuant to the proposed rule change, associated persons primarily responsible for the design, development or significant modification of algorithmic trading strategies (or responsible for the day-to-day supervision or direction of such activities) would be required to register as Securities Traders with FINRA. Under current FINRA rules, it is likely that many of the associated persons primarily responsible for the design of algorithmic trading strategies already are registered, assuming that they also engage in traditional trading activities. Associated persons primarily responsible for the development of algorithmic trading strategies are likely not registered. With regard to supervisors, as noted above, FINRA believes it appropriate for members to “assign” a lead algorithm developer engaging in covered activities to certain registered persons supervising trading activities outside such developer's usual reporting line. Therefore, many of the associated persons responsible for the day-to-day supervision or direction of the design, development or significant modification of algorithmic trading strategies may have already registered.
In
The proposed rule change is expected to enhance investor protection and member compliance by limiting problematic conduct stemming from algorithmic trading strategies. It should also reduce uncertainty by certain market participants of their obligations.
FINRA recognizes that the proposal would impose costs on member firms employing associated persons engaged in the activity subject to the registration requirement. Specifically, among other things, additional associated persons would be required to become registered under the proposal, and the firm would need to establish policies and procedures to monitor compliance with the proposed requirement on an ongoing basis. In
The proposal also may have indirect impacts on member firms. For example, it may discourage persons not currently required to register as Securities Traders, such as some algorithm developers, from associating with a member firm in a capacity that requires registration.
However, given the prevalence and importance of algorithmic trading strategies in today's markets, FINRA
As discussed in the Statement on Comments below, FINRA considered in-house training of firm personnel as an alternative to the proposed registration and qualification requirements. FINRA also considered whether another existing examination would be as (or more) appropriate than the Securities Trader qualification examination. FINRA believes that the proposed registration and continuing education requirements are best suited for associated persons engaging in covered activities.
On March 19, 2015, FINRA published
IEX requests clarification on the rule's application to different types of order routers; particularly treatment of smart order routers that route orders received from customers, but may break the order into “child” orders. IEX states that it would not object to the coverage of such routers, but requests clarification as to the proposal's intended scope with respect to these routers. FINRA confirms that a smart order router that breaks orders into “child” orders is within the scope of “algorithmic trading strategy” as contemplated in this proposal.
FIA PTG proposes expanding the types of systems that would fall within the scope of the Rule to include strategies that are not fully automated. FIA PTG believes that partially automated strategies may present the same potentially problematic issues as fully automated strategies. Thus, FIA PTG recommends that the proposal apply to persons engaged in the development of “automated trading functionality” rather than “algorithmic trading strategies.” FIA PTG believes this broader term—automated trading functionality—would better capture examples of both professional and retail trading systems that offer automated features, such as automation of order book sensitive pricing, automatic short order locate and marking logic, automation of trade timing based on moving reference prices, and automation of hedging or loss-limit orders among other software features.
FINRA does not believe it is appropriate at this time to modify the proposal as suggested by FIA PTG. FINRA believes that it is appropriate initially to focus the scope of the Rule on systems equipped to engage in activity that could potentially result in securities law violations and, thus, has limited the scope of the proposal to automated systems that generate or route orders (or order-related messages), but does not include automated systems that solely route orders received in their entirety to a market center. FINRA also determined to focus the proposal on the covered activities (design, development and significant modification activities, and the day-to-day supervision or direction of such) to the extent that there was no material human intervention. Therefore, partially automated strategies would not fall within the proposal's scope (unless such systems otherwise met the definition of “algorithmic trading strategy” as discussed herein). Finally, FINRA believes that some of the functionality described by FIA PTG—
IEX notes that, as drafted, the proposal applies to persons (i) primarily responsible for the design, development or significant modification of an algorithmic trading strategy or (ii) responsible for supervising or directing such activities. IEX suggests that the second prong should be revised to cover persons responsible for the “day-to-day” supervision or direction of such activities, to more clearly reflect the proposal's intended scope. FINRA agrees that the proposal is intended to capture only those involved in the day-to-day supervision or direction of the covered activities, and has revised the proposed rule text to reflect this change.
FIA PTG states that it agrees with FINRA's view that support personnel should not be required to register. FIA PTG argues that, in addition to excluding technological or development support personnel who are not primarily responsible for the covered activities, FINRA also should exclude users of software, researchers, infrastructure developers, hardware technicians, and operations development staff.
FINRA does not believe modification of the proposal is necessary. Particularly, to the extent that an associated person's activities are limited to using software in a manner that does not amount to engaging in the covered activities, FINRA believes the proposal already is clear that such persons would
SIG believes that a registration requirement would discourage well-qualified developers from participating in the development of algorithmic trading strategies and affiliating with FINRA member firms, which SIG states would be broadly and materially counter-productive and may result in less market stability due to less qualified developers building algorithms. Similarly, FIA PTG notes that any time a registration requirement is not reasonably related to the role or expectations of a professional, it becomes an impediment to hiring and retention. However, FIA PTG also notes that the impact can be mitigated by avoiding prescriptive definitions, and allowing firms to use discretion when identifying the individuals who would require registration.
FINRA is sensitive to the impact of the proposal on persons not currently required to register pursuant to NASD Rule 1032(f). However, given the important role that certain associated persons play in the ultimate trading activities engaged in by member firms through the employment of algorithms, FINRA continues to believe it is important to balance the concerns raised by FIA PTG and SIG with the goal of facilitating compliance with critical market and investor protection rules and, thus, has focused the scope of the proposal on those associated persons primarily responsible for the design development and significant modification of algorithmic trading strategies (and those responsible for the day-to-day supervision and direction of such activities), rather than entire departments or general job functions. As suggested by FIA PTG, FINRA's proposal places within the responsibility of each member the task of identifying the individual or individuals primarily responsible for the activities covered by the proposal and, thus, avoids overbroad application of the Rule.
SIG disagrees that a FINRA registration requirement would be effective in preventing algorithm trading strategies that result in improper activities or securities law violations. SIG believes that robust systems controls are the most effective means of preventing the concerns raised; however, additional efforts suggested include training of technology staff, including a continuing education component (without a registration requirement), and chaperoning requirements for non-registered personnel. Michigan State supports the proposal and believes that it strikes an appropriate balance and will effectively promote both investor protection and market integrity.
Temple also suggests that, in light of the rapid pace of financial innovation and technology, proposed rule initiatives should be structured as pilots, having sunset provisions, or other time-sensitive mechanisms to help support the goal of rules that are reflective of the marketplace. FINRA does not believe the registration requirement should be implemented on a pilot basis, and notes that registration requirements and accompanying examinations remain reflective of the marketplace on an ongoing basis through regular review of examination content outlines and continuing educational requirements.
FINRA agrees that robust systems controls are a critical component in any discussion around the regulation of algorithmic trading. However, education of those responsible for the creation of an algorithmic trading strategy is a separate and equally important consideration. For example, even if an algorithm never malfunctions from a technological standpoint, its behavior nonetheless may violate securities laws if appropriate constraints were not built into the design and development phases that ensure any order generated by the algorithm observes applicable regulatory standards (
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including an object list, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its determination that the noise exposure maps submitted by Los Angeles World Airports, for Los Angeles International Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501 et. seq (Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act) and 14 CFR part 150 are in compliance with applicable requirements.
The effective date of the FAA's determination on the noise exposure maps is February 24, 2016 and applicable February 12, 2016.
Victor Globa, Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Los Angeles Airports District Office, Mailing Address: P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, California 90009-2007. Street Address: 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Hawthorne, California 90261. Telephone: 310/725-3637.
This notice announces that the FAA finds that the noise exposure maps submitted for Los Angeles International Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements of Title14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150 (hereinafter referred to as “Part 150”), effective February 12, 2016. Under 49 U.S.C. Section 47503 of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), an airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps which meet applicable regulations and which depict non-compatible land uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties in the local community, government
The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and accompanying documentation submitted by Los Angeles World Airports. The documentation that constitutes the “Noise Exposure Maps” as defined in Section 150.7 of Part 150 includes: Exhibit 5-1, 2015 Noise Exposure Map (Existing Conditions)—Los Angeles International Airport; Exhibit 5-2, 2020 Noise Exposure Map (Future Conditions)—Los Angeles International Airport. The Noise Exposure Maps contain current and forecast information including the depiction of the airport and its boundary; the runway configurations, land uses such as residential, commercial, industrial, and open space/recreational land use; locations of noise sensitive public buildings (such as schools, hospitals, and historic properties on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places); and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) 65, 70, and 75 decibel airport noise contours resulting from existing and forecast airport operations. The frequency of airport operations is described in Section 4.6.1 of the Noise Exposure Map Update report. Flight tracks associated with Los Angeles International Airport are depicted in Exhibits 4-3 thru 4-10a. The Los Angeles International Airport noise monitoring system is described in Section 4.7 and monitoring locations are shown on Exhibit 4-12 of the Noise Exposure Map Update report. Estimates of the number of people residing within the CNEL contours is located in Section 5.5 of the Noise Exposure Map Update report. The FAA has determined that these noise exposure maps and accompanying documentation are in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is effective on February 12, 2016.
FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with the procedures contained in Appendix A of Part 150. Such determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility program or to fund the implementation of that program. If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted under Section 47503 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of Section 47506 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way under Part 150 or through FAA's review of noise exposure maps. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and planning agencies with which consultation is required under Section 47503 of the Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator, under Section 150.21 of Part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has been accomplished.
Copies of the full noise exposure map documentation and of the FAA's evaluation of the maps are available for examination at the following locations:
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its implementing regulations, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) hereby announces that it is seeking renewal of the following currently approved information collection activities. Before submitting these information collection requests (ICRs) for clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified below.
Comments must be received no later than April 25, 2016.
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 Safety, Regulatory Safety Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590, or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. 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-_____”. Alternatively, comments may be transmitted via facsimile to (202) 493-6216 or (202) 493-6497, or via email to Mr. Brogan at
Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Safety, Regulatory Safety Analysis Division,
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, sec. 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 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 for comment on information collection activities before seeking approval for reinstatement or renewal by OMB. 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a). Specifically, FRA invites interested respondents to comment on the following summary of proposed information collection activities regarding (i) whether the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether the activities will have practical utility; (ii) 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; (iii) ways for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (iv) ways for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on the public by automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
Below is a brief summary of the currently approved ICRs that FRA will submit for clearance by OMB as required under the PRA:
Reporting Burden:
Pursuant to 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.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB); Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
We must receive your written comments on or before April 25, 2016.
As described below, you may send comments on the information collections listed in this document using the “Regulations.gov” online comment form for this document, or you may send written comments via U.S. mail or hand delivery. TTB no longer accepts public comments via email or fax.
•
•
•
Please submit separate comments for each specific information collection listed in this document. You must reference the information collection's title, form or recordkeeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment.
You may view copies of this document, the information collections listed in it and any associated instructions, and all comments received in response to this document within Docket No. TTB-2015-0001 at
Michael Hoover, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street, NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; telephone 202-453-1039, ext. 135; or email
The Department of the Treasury and its Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), as part of their continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed or continuing information collections listed below in this notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be included or summarized in our request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the relevant information collection. All comments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Please do not include any confidential or inappropriate material in your comments.
We invite comments on: (a) Whether this information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the information collection's burden; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the information collection's burden on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide the requested information.
Currently, we are seeking comments on the following forms, recordkeeping requirements, or questionnaires:
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on a new information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Comments should be received on or before March 10, 2016.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Department of the Treasury, Departmental Offices, Office of Financial Stability, ATTN: Hannah Resig, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Requests for additional information should be directed to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), issue a final rule to designate critical habitat for lower Columbia River coho salmon (
This final rule becomes effective on March 25, 2016.
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, are available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at the National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE. Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232-1274. The final rule, maps, and other materials relating to these designations can be found on our Web site at
Steve Stone, NMFS, West Coast Region, Protected Resources Division, at the address above or at 503-231-2317; or Maggie Miller, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD, 301-427-8403.
We are responsible for determining whether species, subspecies, or distinct population segments (DPSs) are threatened or endangered and which areas of their habitat constitute critical habitat for them under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Since the time of listing, the recovery planning process has progressed for these two DPSs and additional new information is now available to better inform the designation process. In view of these developments, we published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on January 10, 2011 (76 FR 1392), to make the public aware of the opportunity to provide us with comments and information that may be useful in making proposed critical habitat designations for these two DPSs. We received several comments and datasets in response to the ANPR and these were reviewed and incorporated as appropriate into documents and analyses supporting our proposed rule that was published on January 14, 2013 (78 FR 2726). The specific areas proposed for designation for lower Columbia River coho included approximately 2,300 mi (3,701 km) of freshwater and estuarine habitat in Oregon and Washington. The specific areas proposed for designation for Puget Sound steelhead included approximately 2,031 mi (3,268 km) of freshwater and estuarine habitat in Puget Sound, WA. We proposed to exclude a number of particular areas from designation because the benefits of exclusion outweighed the benefits of inclusion and we determined that exclusion would not result in the extinction of the DPSs.
The proposed rule (78 FR 2726, January 14, 2013) provided background on the process and rationale we used to identify critical habitat for lower Columbia River coho salmon and Puget Sound steelhead, including: the species' biology and habitat use, the statutory and regulatory aspects of critical habitat designations, and the methods and criteria used to identify critical habitat. More details regarding life history and habitat requirements of lower Columbia River coho and Puget Sound steelhead are found later in this final rule under Species Descriptions and Area Assessments, as well as in the proposed rule, agency status reviews (NMFS, 2001; NMFS, 2005a; NMFS, 2011), and a biological report supporting this rulemaking (NMFS, 2015a).
After considering public comments received and updating the best scientific information available, in this final rule we have made the following changes from the proposed rule: (1) Added 74 miles (119 km) of occupied habitat to the critical habitat designation for lower Columbia River coho; (2) removed 82 miles (132 km) of areas incorrectly identified as occupied by lower Columbia River coho in the proposed critical habitat designation; (3) added 101 miles (163 km) of occupied habitat to the critical habitat designation for Puget Sound steelhead; (4) removed 27 miles (43 km) of areas incorrectly identified as occupied by Puget Sound steelhead in the proposed critical habitat designation; (5) designated critical habitat in 85 miles (137 km) of occupied steelhead habitat on the Kitsap Peninsula originally proposed for exclusion; and (6) corrected the erroneous reference to the Puget Sound subbasin in our regulations. These changes from the proposed rule are discussed further below in the response to comments and summarized for each specific watershed in the range of the DPSs in Tables 1 and 2.
We are also adding regulatory text to update the column labeled “Critical habitat” in the table of threatened species in 50 CFR 223.102(e) to cross-reference this final critical habitat
We requested comments on the proposed rule and associated supporting reports to designate critical habitat for lower Columbia River coho and Puget Sound steelhead. The draft biological report and draft economic analysis were also each reviewed by three peer reviewers. We received 22 individual submissions in response to the proposed rule. All of the comments received, including those of two peer reviewers, expressed either general support for designating critical habitat or support for our exclusion of particular areas within the larger designated areas. The comments received and our responses to them are summarized by topic below.
We relied on the best available information regarding species distribution from state, tribal and federal co-managers in Oregon and Washington. In response to comments and new datasets (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife [ODFW], 2015; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW], 2015) obtained from these co-managers, we made numerous minor edits to the data and maps supporting the critical habitat designations for lower Columbia River coho and Puget Sound steelhead. Edits included both removing and adding stream reaches to better reflect the areas that warrant designation as critical habitat. For coho we made 107 edits and for steelhead we made 101 edits to stream reaches in our Geographic Information System (GIS) dataset. The majority of edits involved small stream segments less than 0.7 miles (1.1 km) in length. The most substantial edit for coho was to remove approximately 69 stream miles (111 km) above Shipherd Falls in the Wind River watershed because co-managers provided information leading us to agree and conclude that coho did not use this area historically nor have they been seen in the past 20 years of stream surveys. For steelhead, the most substantial edit was to remove approximately 6 miles (10 km) in the Upper North Fork Nooksack River watershed where co-managers commented that our proposed distribution in Canyon Creek extended beyond the upper extent of steelhead presence. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the edits made for coho and steelhead, respectively, and our final biological report (NMFS, 2015a) provides greater details and maps depicting these edits. Ultimately, the edits resulted in minor refinements to the proposed designation.
We acknowledge that the areas we considered as meeting the ESA definition of “occupied” may not include all areas where fish might be present, especially in the case of steelhead, which are known to penetrate relatively high-gradient stream reaches not commonly used by Chinook and other salmon species (WDFW, 2000). In preparing the proposed rule and this final rule we reviewed (and made modifications based on) the most recent distribution datasets available using a GIS that allowed us to discern whether a stream reach was occupied or not. In many cases, the available data included numerous `modeled' stream reaches that might be occupied by the species based on stream gradient and known barriers to anadromous fish. We considered these modeled reaches to be occupied if the dataset also had supporting annotation indicating that there was a documented field observation that the species was present, or that there was an analysis demonstrating why it was reasonable to conclude the species was present (professional judgment). A substantial number of modeled reaches did not have such annotation. Stream surveys and species mapping efforts are ongoing for these species. As new information becomes available, we have the ability to revise the critical habitat designations in the future, as appropriate.
The essential physical and biological features used to designate critical habitat for lower Columbia River coho and Puget Sound steelhead are the same as those used for all other west coast salmon and steelhead designations completed since our comprehensive review in 2005 (70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005). Given the broad similarities in life history and habitat requirements shared by different species of salmonids, it is not surprising that many watersheds have similar conservation value ratings. However, the CHART report acknowledges that such ratings can and do differ due to species-specific differences in population structure and habitat utilization. For example, there were a number of cases (15 out of 66 watersheds) where watershed ratings for Puget Sound steelhead differed from ratings made for the same watershed in our 2005 designation for Puget Sound Chinook (70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005). In the case of lower Columbia River coho, an even higher proportion (24 out of 55 watersheds) differed with the watershed ratings made in our 2005 designation for lower Columbia River Chinook.
The CHART report describes the basis for giving three of the four watersheds in the Lake Washington subbasin a low conservation value for Puget Sound steelhead, namely, significant manmade hydrological changes and development have contributed to generally poor quality habitat features. Also, it is unclear to what degree steelhead utilized tributaries in these three watersheds. In the case of the fourth watershed (Cedar River), the CHART expressed similar concerns but also noted that this watershed has the best and most extensive habitat remaining in the subbasin as well as a substantial resident
Several comments addressed our assessment of the conservation value of areas that were unoccupied at the time the species were listed due to dams that have since been removed, specifically Elwha and Glines Canyon dams on the Elwha River (in the range of the Puget Sound steelhead) and Condit Dam on the White Salmon River (in the range of lower Columbia River coho). Another commenter recommended that we consider designating areas above Cushman Dam on the Skokomish River as critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead. In contrast, one commenter was concerned about designating critical habitat above natural barriers that historically blocked access for salmon and steelhead. We address comments specific to each area/barrier below.
Regarding the comments citing court cases relating to ESA sections 3 and 4, we note that our exclusion of HCP lands was based on the provisions of ESA section 4(b)(2)—balancing the benefits of designation versus exclusion—and not on a determination under section 3(5)(A) that such lands do not need “special management” and do not meet the definition of critical habitat under the ESA. Our 4(b)(2) report, made available for public comment, explains the lengthy analysis we undertook to evaluate whether to exclude the specific HCP lands identified above. That analysis included: Contacting each HCP landowner or regulator and soliciting their preferences and concerns; rating the conservation value of watersheds that overlap the HCP; assessing the types of federal activities in those watersheds that would likely undergo section 7 consultation; analyzing the particular HCP areas subject to exclusion in a GIS; balancing the benefits of designating HCP lands against the benefits of excluding them (while ensuring that any exclusions will not result in the extinction of the species); reviewing public input on our proposal and modifying our approach as necessary; and documenting our rationale and final assessment (NMFS 2015c). Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA grants
Based on comments from the Suquamish Tribe, we re-assessed our proposed exclusion of stream reaches occupied by Puget Sound steelhead on the Kitsap Peninsula that are subject to the Forest Practices HCP. Although this extensive HCP includes numerous other watersheds occupied by Puget Sound steelhead (and lower Columbia River coho) we focused our re-assessment on the Kitsap where we had site-specific concerns, such as those raised by the Tribe. As a result of that re-assessment we considered the following:
• Information from the Suquamish Tribe noting strong concerns about this HCP and about Kitsap steelhead and streams within the Tribe's usual and accustomed fishing places, including concerns about the difficulty in accurately delineating HCP areas, activities not covered by the HCP, conversion of lands out of forestland, and non-compliance rates for riparian harvests;
• Recently updated GIS data from the Washington Department of Natural Resources depicting those lands that are `approved' (have authority to operate) or `renewed' (the authority to operate has been extended beyond the original expiration date) under the HCP and its associated incidental take permit. The data posted and analyzed in September 2015 (Washington Department of Natural Resources, 2015) indicate that these approved or renewed lands overlap with approximately 3 miles (5 km) of Kitsap steelhead streams. While Kitsap lands covered by the Forest Practices HCP in the range of Puget Sound steelhead encompass approximately 90 miles (145 km) of steelhead streams, only a small fraction of those lands are currently enrolled and subject to the incidental take permit approved by NMFS for the Forest Practices HCP.
• Except for a few streams adjacent to Hood Canal occupied by threatened chum salmon, most Kitsap streams are not designated ESA critical habitat for other species.
• Information on the future of Washington's forests and forest industries prepared by the University of Washington College of Forest Resources (2009) projects that high-value forest lands on the Kitsap Peninsula are at high risk of being converted from forest use to development (conversion), especially in the northern and eastern parts of the peninsula. Once converted, such lands would no longer qualify for coverage under the HCP.
Based on our reconsideration, we concluded that the benefits of exclusion do not outweigh the benefits of designation for these lands covered by the HCP, primarily because there are no overlapping salmonid critical habitat designations in these areas and there is a high likelihood these areas will be converted (NMFS 2015c), and also because exclusion would undermine our ongoing relationship with the Suquamish Tribe which is an important conservation partner. We therefore have revised our designation to exclude only those Forest Practices HCP areas on the Kitsap Peninsula that the Washington Department of Natural Resources has classified as being in an approved or renewed enrollment status at the time of this final rule.
In the present critical habitat designations, we have used the best available information—including TRT analyses of Puget Sound steelhead population structure (Myers
In our 2011 status review update for ESA-listed salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest (Ford, 2011), we observed that climate change is likely to play an increasingly important role in determining the abundance of ESA-listed fish and the conservation value of designated critical habitats. We went on to note that some habitats currently occupied by salmon and steelhead may become uninhabitable due to the cumulative effects of climate change, and species may exhibit elevational and latitudinal shifts in distribution (Ford, 2011). Changes in the habitat areas and essential features considered in our critical habitat designation will likely be driven by factors such as higher water temperatures, reduced flows in summer and fall, and increased flooding in the winter. For example, increased high flows and flooding could impair the essential features related to freshwater spawning and rearing sites by reducing suitable overwintering habitat as well as scouring redds and reducing egg survival.
While the overall impacts of climate change on salmon and steelhead are expected to be negative, the magnitude of effects is likely to vary considerably. For example, Ford (2011) notes that climate-related changes will vary across the landscape, and areas with elevations high enough to maintain temperatures well below freezing for most of the winter and early spring will be less affected, while low-elevation areas are likely to be more affected. Similarly, the Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan (NMFS, 2013) acknowledges that the magnitude and timing of changes to species' distribution, behavior, growth, and survival are poorly understood and specific effects are likely to vary among populations and goes on to identify various `adaptation strategies' to reduce impacts of climate change. With respect to the comment being addressed here, several strategies of note from the plan include: (1) Conserving adequate habitat to support healthy fish populations and ecosystem functions in a changing climate; (2) Developing a methodology to assess and identify, and then protect, stream reaches and population strongholds that will be resilient/resistant to climate change impacts; and (3) Protecting and restoring headwater rivers and streams to protect the sources of cool, clean water and normative hydrologic conditions.
We believe that our approach to making critical habitat designations for Puget Sound steelhead (as well as lower Columbia River coho) is consistent with such strategies. With respect to the first strategy, we note that we excluded (based on economic impacts) very few occupied stream reaches that met the ESA definition for critical habitat. The vast majority of exclusions we made involved areas covered by HCPs which are expected to promote recovery through land and water management practices that benefit salmonids and encourage voluntary conservation agreements on non-federal lands. For the second strategy, our analysis of critical habitat employed a methodology involving a team of steelhead and habitat experts charged with reviewing and rating the conservation value of habitat areas in every watershed supporting Puget Sound steelhead (NMFS, 2015a). Most of the watersheds we evaluated were assigned a high conservation value by the CHARTs and, in light of the third strategy, many of these watersheds (especially along the Cascade Range) included headwater stream habitats at higher elevations such as those that Ford (2011) suggest will be less affected by climate change.
We will continue to monitor climate change information relevant to Puget Sound steelhead as well as guidance from ongoing recovery planning for this species. Consistent with this commenter's view, if new information suggests that the specific areas we have designated as critical habitat warrant reconsideration, or that additional areas should be considered for designation, we will do so as appropriate.
With respect to our source and citation for information regarding lower Columbia River coho, the draft CHART
The ESA defines critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) as: “(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed . . . on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed . . . upon a determination by the Secretary [of Commerce] that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.” The ESA does not specifically define the phrase “physical or biological features.” As noted in our proposed rule, agency regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) direct us to focus on these features, as well as the principal biological or physical constituent elements that are essential to the conservation of the species. In our CHART report (NMFS, 2015a) and proposed rule (78 FR 2726, January 14, 2013), we referred to the features and sites relevant to this definition as “PCEs.” In this final rule, we use the terms “PCEs” and “essential features” interchangeably and emphasize that these two terms are equivalent for this rulemaking.
Section 4(a)(3) of the ESA precludes the Secretary from designating military lands as critical habitat if those lands are subject to an Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP) under the Sikes Act that the Secretary certifies in writing benefits the listed species. As described in the section
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires us to designate critical habitat for threatened and endangered species “on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.” This section grants the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) discretion to exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines “the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat.” In adopting this provision, Congress explained that, [t]he consideration and weight given to any particular impact is completely within the Secretary's discretion.” H.R. No. 95-1625, at 16-17 (1978). The Secretary's discretion to exclude is limited, as he may not exclude areas that “will result in the extinction of the species.” We describe that process and the results below in the section Application of ESA Section 4(b)(2).
Once critical habitat is designated, section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure they do not fund, authorize, or carry out any actions that will destroy or adversely modify that habitat. This requirement is in addition to the section 7 requirement that federal agencies ensure their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. We identify potentially affected federal agencies and actions in the section
In the following subsections, we describe the relevant definitions and requirements in the ESA and our implementing regulations, and the key methods and criteria used to prepare this critical habitat designation. Discussion of the specific implementation of each item occurs within the species-specific sections. In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and our implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12), this final rule is based on the best scientific information available concerning the species' present and historical range, habitat, and biology, as well as threats to their habitat. In preparing this rule, we reviewed and summarized current information on these species, including recent biological surveys and reports, peer-reviewed literature, NMFS status reviews, comments on our proposed rule, and the proposed and final rules to list these species. All of the information gathered to create this final rule has been collated and analyzed in three supporting documents: A Final Biological Report (NMFS, 2015a); a Final Economic Analysis (NMFS, 2015b); and a Final Section 4(b)(2) Report (NMFS, 2015c). We used this information to inform the identification of specific areas as critical habitat. We followed a five-step process in order to identify these specific areas: (1) Determine the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, (2) identify physical or biological habitat features essential to the conservation of the species (
Federal, state, and tribal fishery biologists map salmonid species presence and distribution at the level of stream reaches. The mapping includes areas where the species is present (within the past 20 years, but typically more recently) or where it is presumed to be present based on the professional judgment of biologists familiar with the watershed and the availability of suitable habitat, in particular the location of known barriers. Much of these data can be accessed and analyzed using GIS to produce consistent and fine-scale maps. As a result, nearly all salmonid freshwater and estuarine habitats in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California are mapped and available in GIS (ODFW, 2010a and 2015; WDFW, 2010 and 2015) at a scale of 1:24,000 (
To identify “specific areas,” we used “HUC5” watersheds as we did in our 2005 salmonid critical habitat designations (70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005). HUC5 watershed delineations are created by the U.S. Geological Survey and are generally available from various federal agencies and via the internet (Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 2003; Regional Ecosystem Office, 2004; U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Geological Survey, 2009). We used this information to organize critical habitat information systematically and at a scale that was relevant to the spatial distribution of salmon and steelhead. Organizing information at this scale is especially relevant to salmonids, since their innate homing ability allows them to return to particular reaches in the specific watersheds where they were born. Such site fidelity results in spatial aggregations of salmonid populations (and their constituent spawning stocks) that generally correspond to the area encompassed by wider HUC4 subbasins or their constituent HUC5 watersheds (Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes, 1992; Kostow, 1995; McElhany
In addition, HUC5 watersheds are consistent with the scale of recovery efforts for West Coast salmon and steelhead, and watershed-level analyses are now common throughout the West Coast. There are presently hundreds of watershed councils or groups in the Pacific Northwest. Many operate at a geographic scale of one to several HUC5 watersheds and are integral parts of larger-scale salmon recovery strategies. In addition to these efforts, we have developed various ESA guidance documents that underscore the link between salmon conservation and the recovery of watershed processes (NMFS, 2000; NMFS, 2005b; NMFS, 2007). Aggregating stream reaches into HUC5 watersheds allowed the agency to delineate “specific areas” within or outside the geographical area occupied by the species at a scale that corresponds well to salmonid population structure and ecological processes.
As in our 2005 critical habitat designations (70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005), we identified estuary features essential to conservation of these species. For streams and rivers that empty into marine areas, we included the associated estuary as part of the HUC5 “specific area.” Also, as in our 2005 salmonid designations, we identified certain prey species in nearshore and offshore marine waters (such as Pacific herring) as essential features, and concluded that some may require special management considerations or protection because they are commercially harvested. However, prey species move or drift great distances throughout marine waters, often in association with oceanographic features that also move (such as eddies and thermoclines). In our proposed rule, we sought new information to better inform this question; however, we did not receive any new information that was not already considered. As such, we conclude that we cannot identify specific offshore marine areas where the essential features may be found (NMFS, 2012).
We also considered marine areas in Puget Sound for steelhead as potential specific areas that may contain features essential to conservation of these species, but concluded that the best available information suggests there are no areas that meet the statute's definition of critical habitat. In our 2005 rule (70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005), we designated critical habitat in nearshore areas for Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon. However, steelhead move rapidly out of freshwater and into offshore marine areas, unlike Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal summer chum, making it difficult to identify specific foraging areas where the essential features are found. We therefore determined that for Puget Sound steelhead it is not possible to identify specific areas with essential features in the nearshore zone in Puget Sound.
Agency regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) interpret the statutory phrase “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species.” The regulations state that these features include, but are not limited to, space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical geographical and ecological distribution of a species. The regulations further direct us to “focus on the principal biological or physical constituent elements . . . that are essential to the conservation of the species, and specify that these elements shall be the `known primary constituent elements'.” The regulations identify primary constituent elements as including, but not being limited to: “roost sites, nesting grounds, spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland or dryland, water quality or quantity, host species or plant pollinator, geological formation, vegetation type, tide, and specific soil types.” As described earlier, in this final rule we use the terms “essential features” and “PCEs” interchangeably to describe the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of lower Columbia River coho and Puget Sound steelhead.
For the 2005 critical habitat designations for salmon and steelhead (70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005), NMFS biologists developed a list of physical and biological features relevant to determining whether occupied stream reaches within a watershed meet the ESA section (3)(5)(A) definition of “critical habitat,” consistent with the implementing regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(b). Relying on the biology and life history of each species, we determined the physical or biological habitat features essential to their conservation. For the present rulemaking, we used the same features, which we identified in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (76 FR 1392, January 10, 2011) and proposed rule (78 FR 2726, January 14, 2013). These features include sites essential to support one or more life stages of the DPS (sites for spawning, rearing, migration and foraging). These sites, in turn, contain physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the DPS (for example, spawning gravels, water quality and quantity, side channels, forage species). Specific types of sites and the features associated with them include the following:
1. Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation and larval development.
2. Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.
3. Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and
4. Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh- and saltwater; natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels; and juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
5. Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels.
6. Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
We re-evaluated these essential features and sites (PCEs) and determined that they are all fully applicable to lower Columbia River coho and Puget Sound steelhead. The habitat areas designated in this rule currently contain essential features within the acceptable range of values required to support the biological processes for which the species use the habitat (NMFS, 2015a). The contribution of the essential features to the habitat varies by site and biological function, illustrating that the quality of the elements may vary within a range of acceptable conditions.
An occupied area cannot be designated as critical habitat unless it contains physical and biological features that “may require special management considerations or protection.” Agency regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define “special management considerations or protection” to mean “[m]ethods or procedures useful in protecting physical or biological features essential to the conservation of listed species.” Many forms of human activity have the potential to affect the habitat of listed salmon species: (1) Forestry; (2) grazing; (3) agriculture; (4) road building/maintenance; (5) channel modifications/diking; (6) urbanization; (7) sand and gravel mining; (8) mineral mining; (9) dams; (10) irrigation impoundments and withdrawals; (11) river, estuary, and ocean traffic; (12) wetland loss/removal; (13) beaver removal; and (14) exotic/invasive species introductions. In addition to these, human harvest of salmonid prey species (
Section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the ESA authorizes the designation of “specific areas outside the geographical area occupied at the time [the species] is listed” if these areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e) emphasize that the agency “shall designate as critical habitat areas outside the geographical area presently occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.” We focused our attention on the species' historical range when considering unoccupied areas since these logically would have been adequate to support the evolution and long-term maintenance of distinct population segments. As with occupied areas, we considered the stream segments within a HUC5 watershed to best describe specific areas. While it is possible to identify which HUC5s represent geographical areas that were historically occupied with a high degree of certainty, this is not always the case with specific stream segments. This is due, in part, to the emphasis on mapping currently occupied habitats and to the paucity of site-specific or systematic historical stream surveys. As described later in this final rule, we did identify unoccupied stream reaches that are essential for conservation of Puget Sound steelhead.
Section 4(a)(3) of the ESA precludes the Secretary from designating military lands as critical habitat if those lands are subject to an INRMP under the Sikes Act that the Secretary certifies in writing benefits the listed species. We consulted with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and determined that three installations in Washington with either draft or final INRMPs overlap with streams occupied by Puget Sound steelhead: (1) Naval Base Kitsap; (2) Naval Radio Station, Jim Creek; and (3) Joint Base Lewis-McChord (Army and Air Force). We did not identify any INRMPs or DOD installations within the range of lower Columbia River coho.
We identified habitat meeting the statutory definition of critical habitat at each of the above installations and reviewed the INRMPs, as well as other information available regarding the management of these military lands. Our review indicates that each of these INRMPs address Puget Sound steelhead habitat, and all contain measures that provide benefits to this DPS (NMFS, 2015c). Examples of the types of benefits include actions that eliminate fish passage barriers, control erosion, protect riparian zones, increase stream habitat complexity, and monitor listed species and their habitats. As a result, we are not designating critical habitat in areas subject to the INRMPs identified above.
To assist in the designation of critical habitat, we convened two CHARTs (henceforth referred to as “Teams”)—one for lower Columbia River coho and another for Puget Sound steelhead. The Teams consisted of NMFS salmonid habitat biologists who were tasked with assessing biological information pertaining to areas under consideration for designation as critical habitat (NMFS, 2015a). The Teams examined each habitat area within the watershed to determine whether the reaches occupied by the species contain the physical or biological features (PCEs) essential to conservation. The Teams also relied on their experience conducting section 7 consultations to determine whether the features “may require special management considerations or protection.” The Teams' rating of habitat areas as having a high, medium, or low conservation value informed our discretionary balancing consideration in ESA section 4(b)(2). The Teams were also tasked with assessing whether there were any unoccupied areas within the historical range of the DPSs that were essential for conservation. Further details on the Team's methods for determining relative conservation values and ratings of habitat areas can be found in the proposed rule (78 FR 2726, January 14, 2013), and that discussion is incorporated herein by reference.
The proposed rule describes in greater detail the life history traits and conservation status of lower Columbia
Specific areas eligible for designation as critical habitat are those that fall within the ESA section 3(5)(A) definition, not including lands owned or controlled by the DOD, or designated for its use, that are covered by an INRMP that we have determined in writing provides a benefit to the species. Specific areas eligible for designation are not automatically designated as critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires that the Secretary consider the economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of designating those areas. The Secretary has the discretion to exclude a “particular area” from designation if he determines the benefits of exclusion (that is, avoiding the impact that would result from designation), outweigh the benefits of designation. The Secretary may not exclude an area from designation if, based on the best available scientific and commercial information, exclusion will result in the extinction of the species. Because the authority to exclude is “wholly” discretionary, exclusion is not required for any areas.
The first step in conducting an ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis is to identify the “particular areas” to be analyzed. Section 3(5) of the ESA defines critical habitat as “specific areas,” while section 4(b)(2) requires the agency to consider certain factors before designating any “particular area.” Depending on the biology of the species, the characteristics of its habitat, and the nature of the impacts of designation, “specific” areas might be different from, or the same as, “particular” areas. For lower Columbia River coho and Puget Sound steelhead, we analyzed two types of “particular” areas. Where we considered economic impacts, and weighed the economic benefits of exclusion against the conservation benefits of designation, we used the same biologically based “specific” areas we had identified under section 3(5)(A), the HUC5 watershed. This worked well because upslope and upstream activities in a watershed can affect the stream within the watershed (see the Final Economic Analysis (NMFS, 2015b) for definition of the HUC5s and more information). This approach allowed us to most effectively consider the conservation value of the different areas when balancing conservation benefits of designation against economic benefits of exclusion. Where we considered impacts on Indian lands and lands subject to a HCP, however, we instead used a delineation of “particular” areas based on ownership or control of the area. Specifically, these particular areas consisted of occupied freshwater and estuarine areas that overlap with Indian and HCP lands. This approach allowed us to consider impacts and benefits associated with land ownership and management by Indian tribes and HCP partners.
The use of two different types of areas required us to account for overlapping boundaries (that is, ownership may span many watersheds and watersheds may have mixed ownership). The order in which we conducted the section 4(b)(2) balancing became important because of this overlap. To ensure we were not double-counting the benefits of exclusion, we first considered exclusion of particular areas based on land ownership and determined which areas to recommend for exclusion. We then considered economic exclusion of particular areas based on watersheds, with the economic impact for each watershed adjusted based on whether a given type of ownership had already been recommended for exclusion.
The primary benefit of designation is the protection afforded under the ESA section 7 requirement that all federal agencies ensure their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. This type of benefit is sometimes referred to as an incremental benefit because the protections afforded to the species from critical habitat designation are in addition to the requirement that all federal agencies ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. In addition, the designation may enhance the conservation of habitat by informing the public about areas and features important to species conservation. This may help focus and contribute to conservation efforts for salmon and steelhead and their habitats.
With sufficient information, it may be possible to monetize these benefits of designation by first quantifying the benefits expected from an ESA section 7 consultation and translating that into dollars. We are not aware, however, of any available data to monetize the benefits of designation (
There are many federal activities that occur within the specific areas that could impact the conservation value of these areas. Regardless of designation, federal agencies are required under Section 7 of the ESA to ensure these activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of lower Columbia River coho and Puget Sound steelhead. If the specific areas are designated as critical habitat, federal agencies will additionally be required to ensure their actions are not likely to adversely modify the critical habitat. We grouped the potential federal activities that would be subject to this additional protection into several broad categories: Water supply, in-stream work, development, federal lands management, transportation, utilities, mining, and hydropower.
The benefit of designating a particular area depends upon the likelihood of a section 7 consultation occurring in that area and the degree to which a
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA provides that the Secretary shall consider “the economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.” The primary impact of a critical habitat designation stems from the requirement under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA that federal agencies ensure their actions are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Determining this impact is complicated by the fact that section 7(a)(2) contains the overlapping requirement that federal agencies must ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the species' continued existence. The true impact of designation is the extent to which federal agencies modify their actions to ensure their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of the species, beyond any modifications they would make because of listing and the jeopardy requirement. Additional impacts of designation include state and local protections that may be triggered as a result of the designation. In addition, if the area designated overlaps an area previously designated as critical habitat for another species, the true impact of designation is the modification federal agencies would make beyond any modification they would make to avoid adversely modifying the already-designated critical habitat.
In determining the impacts of designation, we predicted the incremental change in federal agency actions as a result of critical habitat designation and the adverse modification prohibition, beyond the changes predicted to occur as a result of listing and the jeopardy provision. In August 2013, we and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published a final rule amending our joint regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 to make clear that in considering impacts of designation as required by Section 4(b)(2) we would consider the incremental impacts (78 FR 53058, August 28, 2013). More recently, several courts (including the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) have approved an approach that considers the incremental impact of designation. The
To determine the impact of designation, we examined what the state of the world would be with the designation of critical habitat for the lower Columbia River coho and Puget Sound steelhead DPSs and compared it to the state of the world without the designations. The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis. It includes process requirements and habitat protections already afforded these DPSs under their federal listing or under other federal, state, and local regulations. Such regulations include protections afforded to habitat supporting these two DPSs from other co-occurring ESA listings and critical habitat designations, in particular listings/designations for West Coast salmon and steelhead (70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005). In the case of lower Columbia River coho, the designation overlaps with existing designations for lower Columbia River steelhead and Chinook and Columbia River chum, as well as several DPSs that spawn upstream in the middle and upper Columbia and Snake Rivers. In the case of Puget Sound steelhead, the designation overlaps with existing designations for Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal summer-run chum. The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for lower Columbia River coho and Puget Sound steelhead. The primary impacts of critical habitat designation we found were: (1) The costs associated with additional administrative effort of including a critical habitat analysis in section 7 consultations for these two DPSs, (2) project modifications required solely to avoid destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat, (3) potential impacts on national security if particular areas were designated critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead, and (4) the possible harm to our working relationship with Indian tribes and some HCP landowners. There are no military areas eligible for designation that overlap with critical habitat areas, so we did not consider impacts to national security. Because we have chosen to balance benefits and consider exclusions, we consider these impacts in more detail below in the section devoted to each type of impact.
Our economic analysis sought to determine the impacts on land uses and activities from the designation of critical habitat that are above and beyond—or incremental to—those “baseline” impacts due to existing or planned conservation efforts being undertaken due to other federal, state, and local regulations or guidelines (NMFS, 2015b). Other federal agencies, as well as state and local governments, may also seek to protect the natural resources under their jurisdiction. If compliance with the Clean Water Act or State environmental quality laws, for example, protects habitat for the species, such protective efforts are considered to be baseline protections and costs associated with these efforts
When critical habitat is designated, section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions will not result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (in addition to ensuring that the actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species). The added administrative costs of considering critical habitat in section 7 consultations and the additional impacts of implementing project modifications to protect critical habitat are the direct result of the designation of critical habitat. These costs are not in the baseline and are considered incremental impacts of the rulemaking.
Incremental impacts may also include the direct costs associated with additional effort for future consultations, reinitiated consultations, new consultations occurring specifically because of the designation, and additional project modifications that would not have been required to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the species. Additionally, incremental impacts may include indirect impacts resulting from reaction to the designation of critical habitat (
To evaluate the economic impact of critical habitat we first examined our ESA section 7 consultation record for West Coast salmon and steelhead. That voluminous record includes consultations on habitat-modifying federal actions both where critical habitat has been designated and where it has not. As further explained in the supporting economic report (NMFS, 2015b), to quantify the economic impact of designation, we employed the following three steps:
(1) Define the geographic study area for the analysis, and identify the units of analysis (the “particular areas”). In this case, we defined HUC5 watersheds that encompass occupied stream reaches as the study area.
(2) Identify potentially affected economic activities and determine how management costs may increase due to the designation of critical habitat for lower Columbia River coho and Puget Sound steelhead, both in terms of project administration and project modification.
(3) Estimate the economic impacts associated with these changes in management.
We estimated a total annualized incremental cost of approximately $357,815 for designating all specific areas as critical habitat for lower Columbia River coho. The greatest costs are associated with transportation, water supply, and in-stream work activities (see NMFS, 2015b). The Columbia Slough/Willamette River HUC5 watershed had the largest estimated annual impacts ($54,000) while the Jackson Prairie HUC5 watershed had the lowest, with zero estimated annual impacts (NMFS, 2015b).
For Puget Sound steelhead, we estimated a total annualized incremental administrative cost of approximately $460,924 for designating all specific areas as critical habitat. The greatest costs are associated with transportation and in-stream work activities (see NMFS, 2015b). Several watersheds located throughout the range of the DPS had zero estimated annual impacts, while the Lake Washington HUC5 watershed had the largest estimated annual impacts ($103,000) (NMFS, 2015b).
In weighing economic impacts, we followed the policy direction from Executive Order 12866 to “maximize net benefits” and seek to achieve regulatory objectives in “the most cost effective manner.” Consistent with our past practice for salmon and steelhead critical habitat designations, we took into consideration a cost-effectiveness approach giving priority to excluding habitat areas with a relatively lower benefit of designation and a relatively higher economic impact. The circumstances of these and other listed salmon and steelhead DPSs can make a cost-effectiveness approach useful because different areas have different conservation value relative to one another. Pacific salmon and steelhead are wide-ranging species and occupy numerous habitat areas with thousands of stream miles. Not all occupied areas are of equal importance to conserving a DPS. Within the currently occupied range there are areas that historically were more or less productive, that are currently more or less degraded, or that support populations that are more or less central to conservation of the DPS as a whole. As a result, in many cases it may be possible to construct a designation scenario in which conservation of the DPS as a whole will be possible even if the entire area meeting the definition of critical habitat is not designated. This creates the potential to consider exclusions where conservation values are relatively low and economic impacts are relatively high. This is the same approach we took in our 2005 salmonid critical habitat designations (70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005) and green sturgeon critical habitat designation (74 FR 52300, October 9, 2009).
In seeking a cost-effective designation that would minimize economic impacts, we also heeded the policy direction to conserve salmon and steelhead habitat described above. In accordance with the policy direction to conserve salmon and steelhead habitat, we are not excluding any habitat areas based on economic impacts if exclusion would “significantly impede conservation.” We adopted this test because habitat loss and degradation are leading factors for the decline of both DPSs (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005; 72 FR 26722, May 11, 2007), and habitat protection and restoration have been identified as key actions in Lower Columbia River and Puget Sound recovery plans and assessments (Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan, 2009; Judge, 2011; NMFS, 2013). Consistent with this test, we did not consider any areas for an economic exclusion that we had identified as having a high conservation value. We gave greater weight to the benefit of designating these high value areas than to the benefit of avoiding economic impacts because of the historic loss and degradation of habitat, the ongoing threats to habitat, and the importance of habitat protection and restoration in recovering the DPSs. The approach taken here is the same approach we took in our 2005 salmon and steelhead critical habitat designations (70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005) and green sturgeon critical habitat designation (74 FR 52300, October 9, 2009). Also consistent with this test, we are not excluding any medium or low quality habitat areas if we concluded that their exclusion would significantly impede conservation, as described further below.
In the first step of balancing economic benefits, we identified for potential exclusion the low value habitat areas with an annual economic impact greater than or equal to $10,000 and the medium value habitat areas with an annual economic impact greater than or equal to $100,000. These dollar thresholds are substantially lower than the thresholds we used in our 2005 designations because here we have used the incremental impact of designation, while in the 2005 rule we used the coextensive impact of designation. (Our 2005 rule explains in greater detail how and why we relied on coextensive impacts (see 70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005)). As with the 2005 designations, the thresholds we selected for identifying habitat areas eligible for exclusion do not represent an objective
In the second step of the process, we asked the Teams whether exclusion of any of the low- or medium-value habitat areas would significantly impede conservation of the DPS. The Teams considered this question in the context of: (1) The Indian lands and HCP lands they assumed would be excluded based on “other relevant impacts” (exclusions discussed later in this report), (2) all of the areas eligible for economic exclusion, and (3) the information they had developed in providing the conservation ratings. The Critical Habitat Designations section below describes the results of applying the two-step process to each DPS. The results are discussed in greater detail in a separate report that is available for public review (NMFS, 2015c).
Much of the benefit of designating critical habitat on Indian lands is the same as designating critical habitat on other lands. In an ESA section 7 consultation, federal agencies must ensure their actions do not destroy or adversely modify the designated critical habitat, in addition to ensuring their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. There is a broad array of activities on Indian lands that may trigger section 7 consultations. The other benefit is the notice that designation gives that an area is important to conservation of the species. Both of these benefits may be diminished by the fact that tribes are actively working to address the habitat needs of the species on their lands as well, as in the larger ecosystem, and are fully aware of the conservation value of their lands. (This is documented in correspondence from the tribes, several in response to the agency's ANPR (76 FR 1392, January 10, 2011)).
Indian lands affected by a critical habitat designation only occur within the range of the Puget Sound steelhead DPS, and they comprise only a minor portion (approximately 2 percent) of the total habitat under consideration for designation (NMFS, 2015c). This percentage is likely an overestimate as it includes all habitat area within reservation boundaries. In many cases, a considerable portion of the land within the reservation boundaries is no longer held in trust for the tribe or in fee status by individual tribal members.
The longstanding and distinctive relationship between the federal and tribal governments is defined by treaties, statutes, executive orders, judicial decisions, and agreements, which differentiate tribal governments from the other entities that deal with, or are affected by, the Federal Government. This relationship has given rise to a special federal trust responsibility involving the legal responsibilities and obligations of the United States toward Indian Tribes with respect to Indian lands, tribal trust resources, and the exercise of tribal rights (
In addition to the distinctive trust relationship, for Pacific salmonids in the Northwest, there is a unique partnership between the Federal Government and Indian tribes regarding salmonid management. Northwest Indian tribes are regarded as “co-managers” of the salmonid resource, along with federal and state managers. This co-management relationship evolved as a result of numerous court decisions clarifying the tribes' treaty right to take fish in their usual and accustomed places. The tribes have stated in letters and meetings that designation of Indian lands as critical habitat will undermine long-term working relationships and reduce the capacity of tribes to participate at current levels in the many and varied forums addressing ecosystem management and conservation of fisheries resources. In the decision
The current co-manager process addressing activities on an ecosystem-wide basis throughout the Northwest is beneficial for the conservation of the salmonids. We also believe that maintenance of our current co-manager relationship consistent with existing policies is an important benefit to continuance of our tribal trust responsibilities and relationship. Based upon our consultation with the Tribes, we believe that designation of Indian lands as critical habitat would adversely impact our working relationship and the benefits resulting from this relationship. The benefits of excluding Indian lands from designation include: (1) The furtherance of established national policies, our federal trust obligations and our deference to the tribes in management of natural resources on their lands; (2) the maintenance of effective long-term working relationships to promote the conservation of salmonids on an ecosystem wide basis across four states; (3) the allowance for continued meaningful collaboration and cooperation in scientific work to learn more about the conservation needs of the species on an ecosystem-wide basis; and (4) continued respect for tribal sovereignty over management of natural resources on Indian lands through established tribal natural resource programs.
Based upon these considerations, we have determined to exercise agency discretion under ESA section 4(b)(2) and exclude Indian lands from the critical habitat designation for Puget Sound steelhead. The Indian lands specifically excluded from critical habitat are those defined in the Secretarial Order, including: (1) Lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe; (2) land held in trust by the United States for any Indian Tribe or individual subject to restrictions by the United States against alienation; (3) fee lands, either within or outside the reservation boundaries, owned by the tribal government; and (4) fee lands within the reservation boundaries owned by individual Indians. These particular areas comprise only 2 percent of the total area under consideration for designation as critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead (NMFS, 2015c).
Conservation agreements with non-federal landowners (
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA authorizes us to issue to non-federal entities a permit for the incidental take of endangered and threatened species. This permit allows a non-federal landowner to proceed with an activity that is legal in all other respects, but that results in the incidental taking of a listed species (
In previous critical habitat designations for West Coast salmon and steelhead (70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005), we have exercised discretion to exclude some (but not all) lands covered by an HCP from designation after concluding that benefits of exclusion outweighed the benefits of designation. For lands covered by an HCP, the benefits of designation typically arise from section 7 protections as well as enhanced public awareness. The benefits of exclusion generally include relieving regulatory burdens on existing conservation partners, maintaining good working relationships with them (thus enhancing implementation of existing HCPs), and encouraging the development of new partnerships.
We contacted the HCP landowners whose lands were excluded in our 2005 designations (Washington Department of Natural Resources, Green Diamond Resources Company, and West Fork Timber Company) to discuss the critical habitat designations for lower Columbia River coho and Puget Sound steelhead. We also contacted several additional landowners whose HCPs had been authorized subsequent to our 2005 critical habitat designations (Washington Forest Practices, City of Portland-Bull Run Water Supply, and City of Kent Water Supply) or were existing then but now determined to overlap with new habitat areas being considered for designation (J.L. Storedahl and Sons). All of them except one (City of Portland) requested that their lands be excluded from designation as critical habitat for these DPSs, and were of the opinion that exclusion would be a benefit and enhance the partnership between NMFS and the HCP landowner. We also reviewed the activities covered by the HCPs, the protections afforded by the HCP agreement, and the federal activities that are likely to occur on the affected lands (NMFS, 2015c). From this information, we determined that, in most cases, the conservation benefits to the species from the HCPs outweigh the conservation benefits of designation and, therefore, are excluding HCP lands where the landowner or regulator demonstrated that exclusion would have the benefit of improving our working relationship with them or with those whose lands were covered by the HCP. One exception involves specific lands on the Kitsap Peninsula that are not currently identified as being actively enrolled under Washington Forest Practices HCP and which we have determined warrant critical habitat designation for Puget Sound steelhead (NMFS 2015c).
Section 4(b)(2) limits our discretion to exclude areas from designation if exclusion will result in extinction of the species.
Because we have not recommended excluding any habitat areas based on economic impacts if the exclusion would significantly impede conservation, we have determined for each DPS that the exclusion of the areas we recommend based on economic impacts will not result in the extinction of either DPS. All areas excluded are of low conservation value. Moreover, they comprise a small fraction—less than 5 percent—of all habitat areas considered for designation as critical habitat for either DPS.
We also conclude that excluding Indian lands—and thereby furthering the federal government's policy of promoting respect for tribal sovereignty and self-governance—will not result in extinction of either species. Habitat on Indian lands represents a small proportion of total area occupied by the Puget Sound steelhead DPS and the Tribes are actively engaged in fisheries, habitat management, and species recovery programs that benefit steelhead and other salmonids.
In addition, we conclude that excluding lands covered by several HCPs will not result in extinction of either species. These particular HCPs result in management actions that promote conservation of the listed species in a manner that is not available through the section 7 requirements regarding critical habitat. Excluding these HCP areas from designation is expected to enhance our relationship with the landowner and may provide an incentive to other landowners to seek conservation agreements with us. These outcomes will, in turn, generally benefit our recovery efforts to foster voluntary efforts on vast areas of nonfederal lands which make up a large proportion of each species' range and will play a critical role in avoiding species extinction.
In total, for lower Columbia River coho we are designating 2,300 stream miles (3,701 km) and excluding 1,045 stream miles (1,682 km), and for Puget Sound steelhead we are designating 2,031 stream miles (3,269 km) and excluding 1,569 stream miles (2,525 km). For the following reasons, we conclude that these exclusions, in combination, will not result in the extinction of either DPS:
(1) Except for exclusions due to economic impacts, there are no watersheds that are excluded in their entirety. The most area excluded for any single watershed is the Lower West Hood Canal watershed, with 78 percent excluded due to the presence of HCPs. This area was rated as having a low conservation value.
(2) Although the extent of the exclusions overall is significant (nearly 50 percent of the critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead and nearly 30 percent of the critical habitat for lower Columbia coho), and many of the areas excluded are of medium or high conservation value to the species, most of the exclusions are based on the presence of HCPs, which have a conservation benefit for the species. Also, the likely leverage to obtain significant conservation benefits from an ESA section 7 consultation is expected to be low for most areas. Because the presence of high quality forested habitat is key to salmon and steelhead recovery, the protections of the HCP, which all involve forested/riparian lands, will have significant benefits over the long term as riparian forest habitat is developed. In addition, we believe that the HCP exclusions, in particular, may provide an incentive to other landowners to seek conservation agreements with us.
(3) The few cases where an entire watershed was excluded (due to economic impacts), the Teams deemed all involved habitat areas to be of low conservation value.
(4) The Indian land exclusions involve stream reaches that are already managed by the tribes for salmonid conservation.
In previous salmonid critical habitat designations we identified the end-point of designated stream segments using latitude and longitude coordinates and provided maps depicting the designated areas (70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005). In May of 2012, we and the USFWS amended our regulations regarding critical habitat designation (77 FR 25611, May 1, 2012). The revised regulation provides that the boundaries of critical habitat as mapped or otherwise described in the Regulation Promulgation section of a rulemaking published in the
We are designating approximately 2,300 stream miles (3,701 km) within the geographical area presently occupied by the lower Columbia River coho DPS (see Table 3). Other ESA-listed species in this area with designated critical habitat include lower Columbia River Chinook and steelhead, Columbia River chum (70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005), bull trout (75 FR 63898, October 18, 2010), green sturgeon (74 FR 52300, October 9, 2009), and the Southern DPS of eulachon (76 FR 65324, October 20, 2011). Also, the mainstem lower Columbia River is designated critical habitat for numerous other salmon and steelhead DPSs whose spawning range is upstream of the area presently occupied by lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005).
The areas designated are all occupied and contain physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species that may require special management considerations or protection. No unoccupied areas were identified that are considered essential for the conservation of the species. There are 55 watersheds within the range of this DPS. Three watersheds received a low conservation value rating, 18 received a medium rating, and 34 received a high rating (NMFS, 2015a). The lower Columbia River rearing/migration corridor downstream of the spawning range is considered to have a high conservation value. As a result of the balancing process for economic impacts described above, we are excluding from the designation all or portions of 28 watersheds listed in Table 4. Of the habitat areas eligible for designation, approximately 27 stream miles (43 km) or 0.8 percent are being excluded because the economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation. Also, we are excluding approximately 1,018 stream miles (1,638 km) covered by 4 HCPs (J.L. Storedahl and Sons HCP, Washington Department of Natural Resources—West of Cascades HCP, Washington Forest Practices HCP, and West Fork Timber HCP) because the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation. None of the HCP exclusions overlap with areas also excluded due to economic impacts. Total estimated economic impact, with no exclusions, is $357,815. The economic-related exclusions identified in Table 4 would reduce the total estimated economic impact approximately 4 percent to $344,315 (NMFS, 2015b).
We are designating approximately 2,031 stream miles (3,269 km) within the geographical area presently occupied by the Puget Sound steelhead DPS (see Table 5). Other ESA-listed salmonids in this area with designated critical habitat include Puget Sound Chinook, Hood Canal summer-run chum (70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005), and bull trout (75 FR 63898, October 18, 2010).
The areas designated are all occupied and contain physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species that may require special management considerations or protection. One unoccupied area in the upper Elwha River watershed was identified as essential for the conservation of the species and is being designated as critical habitat. There are 66 watersheds within the range of this DPS. Nine watersheds received a low conservation value rating, 16 received a medium rating, and 41 received a high rating to the DPS (NMFS, 2015a).
Approximately 28 stream miles (45 km) are not designated because they are within lands controlled by the military that contain qualifying INRMPs. Approximately 70 miles (113 km) of stream are within the boundaries of Indian reservations, but only those reaches defined as Indian lands (see
In past designations, we have described the lateral extent of critical habitat in various ways, ranging from fixed distances to “functional” zones defined by important riparian functions (65 FR 7764, February 16, 2000). Designating a set riparian zone width will (in some places) accurately reflect the distance from the stream on which essential features might be found, but in other cases may overstate or understate the distance. Designating a functional buffer avoids that problem, but makes it difficult for federal agencies to know in advance what areas are critical habitat. To address these issues, we are defining the lateral extent of designated critical habitat as the width of the stream channel defined by the ordinary high water line as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 33 CFR 329.11. In areas for which ordinary high-water has not been defined pursuant to 33 CFR 329.11, the width of the stream channel shall be defined by its bankfull elevation. Bankfull elevation is the level at which water begins to leave the channel and move into the floodplain (Rosgen, 1996) and is reached at a discharge which generally has a recurrence interval of 1 to 2 years on the
As underscored in previous critical habitat designations, the quality of aquatic habitat within stream channels is intrinsically related to the adjacent riparian zones and floodplain, surrounding wetlands and uplands, and non-fish-bearing streams above occupied stream reaches. Human activities that occur outside the stream or designated critical habitat can modify or destroy physical and biological features of the stream. In addition, human activities that occur within and adjacent to reaches upstream (
In the few cases where we are designating lakes/reservoirs as critical habitat, the lateral extent may best be defined as the perimeter of the water body as displayed on standard 1:24,000 scale topographic maps or the elevation of ordinary high water, whichever is greater.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires federal agencies to insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency (agency action) does not jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. When a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, federal agencies must consult with us on any agency actions to be conducted in an area where the species is present and that may affect the species or its critical habitat. During the consultation, we evaluate the agency action to determine whether the action may adversely affect listed species or critical habitat and issue our findings in a biological opinion. If we conclude in the biological opinion that the agency action would likely result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, we would also recommend any reasonable and prudent alternatives to the action. Reasonable and prudent alternatives are defined in 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during formal consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of the federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible, and that would avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require federal agencies that have retained discretionary involvement or control over an action, or where such discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law, to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances in which (1) critical habitat is subsequently designated; or (2) new information or changes to the action may result in effects to critical habitat not previously considered in the biological opinion. Consequently, some federal agencies may request re-initiation of a consultation with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed if those actions may affect designated critical habitat.
Activities subject to the ESA section 7 consultation process include activities on federal lands and activities on private or state lands requiring a permit from a federal agency (
ESA section 4(b)(8) requires in any proposed or final regulation to designate critical habitat an evaluation and brief description of those activities (whether public or private) that may adversely modify such habitat or that may be affected by such designation. A wide variety of activities may affect designated critical habitat and may be subject to the ESA section 7 consultation process when carried out, funded, or authorized by a federal agency. These include water and land management actions of numerous federal agencies (
Private entities may also be affected by these critical habitat designations if a federal permit is required, if federal funding is received, or the entity is involved in or receives benefits from a federal project. For example, private entities may have special use permits to convey water or build access roads across federal land; they may require federal permits to construct irrigation withdrawal facilities, or build or repair docks; they may obtain water from federally funded and operated irrigation projects; or they may apply pesticides that are only available with federal agency approval. These activities will need to be evaluated with respect to their potential to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat for lower Columbia River coho and Puget Sound steelhead. Changes to some activities,
The data and analyses supporting this action have undergone a pre-dissemination review and have been determined to be in compliance with applicable information quality guidelines implementing the Information Quality Act (IQA) (Section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554). In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review pursuant to the IQA. The Bulletin was published in the
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
(1) This rule is needed in order to comply with the ESA's requirement to designate critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable when species are listed as threatened or endangered. The objectives of this action are to help conserve threatened lower Columbia River coho and Puget Sound steelhead by identifying critical habitat areas, consistent with the best available scientific information, that contain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. Once designated, this critical habitat can be protected through the ESA section 7 consultation process in which NMFS and federal action agencies review the effects of federal actions on the survival and recovery of these species.
(2) We solicited but did not receive comments on our initial regulatory flexibility analysis from the public nor from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
(3) The impacts to small businesses were assessed for the following broad categories of activities: Hydropower, development, in-stream work, water supply, federal lands management, transportation, utilities, mining, and other activities (including water, sewer, and oil/gas pipeline construction). Small entities are defined by the Small Business Administration size standards for each activity type. Of potentially affected entities, 89 percent are classified as likely to be “small.” We estimated the annualized costs associated with ESA section 7 consultations incurred per small business under two different scenarios. We developed these scenarios because unavailable or inadequate data leaves some uncertainty surrounding both the numbers of entities that will be subject to the rule and the characteristics of any impacts on particular entities. Under Scenario 1, our analysis estimates the number of small entities located within areas that may be affected by the designation (approximately 5,381 for lower Columbia River coho, and 12,758 for Puget Sound steelhead), and assumes that incremental impacts are distributed evenly across all entities in each affected activity category (
Under scenario 2, our analysis assumes costs of each anticipated future consultation are borne by a distinct small business (approximately 55 entities for lower Columbia River coho, 117 for Puget Sound steelhead). Under this scenario, in the range of lower Columbia River coho critical habitat, each small entity may bear costs of between $1,120 and $31,000, representing between <0.01 and 0.46 percent of average annual revenues, depending on the activity category. In the range of Puget Sound steelhead critical habitat, each small entity may bear costs of between $510 and $5,930, representing between <0.01 and 0.17 percent of average annual revenues, depending on the activity category.
(4) There are no record-keeping or reporting requirements associated with this final rule. Similarly, there are no other compliance requirements in the rule. There are no professional skills necessary for preparation of any report or record.
(5) In accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996), our analysis considered various alternatives to the critical habitat designations for these DPSs. The alternative of not designating critical habitat for these DPSs was considered and rejected because such an
This final rule has been determined to be not significant under Executive Order 12866.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued an executive order on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking any action that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
We have considered the potential impacts of this action on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and find the designation of critical habitat will not have impacts that exceed the thresholds identified above (NMFS, 2015b).
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, we make the following findings:
(a) This final rule will not produce a federal mandate. In general, a federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon state, local, tribal governments, or the private sector and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to state, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding” and the state, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. (At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement.)
“Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.” The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-federal government entities or private parties. Under the ESA, the only regulatory effect is that federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. While non-federal entities which receive federal funding, assistance, permits or otherwise require approval or authorization from a federal agency for an action may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive federal assistance or participate in a voluntary federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above to state governments.
(b) Due to the existing protection afforded to the critical habitat from existing critical habitat for salmon and steelhead (70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005), Southern DPS of green sturgeon (74 FR 52300, October 9, 2009), bull trout (70 FR 56212, September 26, 2005), and the Southern DPS of eulachon (76 FR 65324, October 20, 2011), we do not anticipate that this final rule will significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Under Executive Order 12630, federal agencies must consider the effects of their actions on constitutionally protected private property rights and avoid unnecessary takings of property. A taking of property includes actions that result in physical invasion or occupancy of private property, and regulations imposed on private property that substantially affect its value or use. In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this final rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required. The designation of critical habitat affects only federal agency actions. We do not expect the critical habitat designations will impose additional burdens on land use or affect property values. Additionally, the critical habitat designations do not preclude the development of HCPs and issuance of incidental take permits for non-federal actions. Owners of areas included within the critical habitat designations would continue to have the opportunity to use their property in ways consistent with the survival of listed salmon and steelhead.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, we determined that this final rule does not have significant Federalism effects and that a Federalism assessment is not required. In keeping with Department of Commerce policies, we request information from, and will coordinate development of these critical habitat designations with, appropriate state resource agencies in Oregon and Washington. The final designations may
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 and Secretarial Order 3206, we contacted the affected Indian Tribes when considering the designation of critical habitat in an area that may impact tribal trust resources, tribally owned fee lands or the exercise of tribal rights. All of the responding tribes expressed concern about the intrusion into tribal sovereignty that critical habitat designation represents. These concerns are consistent with previous responses from tribes when we developed critical habitat designations for salmon and steelhead in 2005 (70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005). The Secretarial Order defines Indian lands as “any lands title to which is either: (1) Held in trust by the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or (2) held by an Indian Tribe or individual subject to restrictions by the United States against alienation.” Our conversations with the tribes indicate that they view the designation of Indian lands as an unwanted intrusion into tribal self-governance, compromising the government-to-government relationship that is essential to achieving our mutual goal of conserving threatened and endangered salmonids.
For the general reasons described in the
The Department of Commerce has determined that this final rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. We are designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the ESA. This final rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the essential features within the designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of lower Columbia River coho and Puget Sound steelhead.
This final rule does not contain new or revised information collection requirements for which OMB approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This final rule will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on state or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
We have determined that an environmental analysis as provided for under NEPA is not required for critical habitat designations made pursuant to the ESA. See
Section 307(c)(1) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1456) requires that all federal activities that affect the land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone be consistent with approved state coastal zone management programs to the maximum extent practicable. We have determined that these final designations of critical habitat are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved Coastal Zone Management Programs of Oregon and Washington.
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking can be found on our Web site at
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Transportation.
Endangered and threatened species.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we amend 50 CFR parts 223 and 226 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C 1361
(e) * * *
16 U.S.C. 1533.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Critical habitat is designated in the following states and counties for the following DPSs as described in paragraph (a) of this section, and as further described in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section. The textual descriptions of critical habitat for each DPS are included in paragraphs (i) through (w) of this section, and these descriptions are the definitive source for determining the critical habitat boundaries. General location maps are provided at the end of each DPS description (paragraphs (i) through (w) of this section) and are provided for general guidance purposes only, and not as a definitive source for determining critical habitat boundaries.
(a) Critical habitat is designated for the following DPSs in the following states and counties:
(c)
(e) * * *
(9) Fort Lewis (Joint Base Lewis-McChord—Army and Air Force);
(23) Dabob Bay/Whitney Point naval restricted area;
(24) Port Townsend/Indian Island/Walan Point naval restricted area; and
(25) Naval Base Kitsap.
(f)
(1) Washington Department of Natural Resources—West of Cascades
(2) Washington State Forest Practices, except those lands on the Kitsap Peninsula overlapping with areas occupied by Puget Sound steelhead and not classified as being in an approved or renewed status by the Washington Department of Natural Resources as of September 2015.
(3) Green Diamond Company.
(4) West Fork Timber Company.
(5) City of Kent.
(6) J.L. Storedahl and Sons.
(t)
(1) Middle Columbia-Hood Subbasin 17070105—(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(2) Lower Columbia-Sandy Subbasin 17080001—(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(3) Lewis Subbasin 17080002—(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(4) Lower Columbia-Clatskanie Subbasin 17080003—(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(5) Upper Cowlitz Subbasin 17080004—(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(6) Cowlitz Subbasin 17080005—(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(7) Lower Columbia Subbasin 17080006—(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(8) Clackamas Subbasin 17090011—(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(9) Lower Willamette Subbasin 17090012—(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(10) Lower Columbia River Corridor—Lower Columbia River Corridor.Outlet(s) = Columbia River (Lat 46.2485, Long −124.0782) upstream to endpoint(s) in: Columbia River (Lat 45.605237, Long −121.633264).
(11) Maps of proposed critical habitat for the lower Columbia River coho salmon DPS follow:
(u)
(1) Strait Of Georgia Subbasin 17110002—(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(2) Nooksack Subbasin 17110004—(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(3) Upper Skagit Subbasin 17110005—(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(4) Sauk Subbasin 17110006—(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(5) Lower Skagit Subbasin 17110007—(i)
(ii)
(6) Stillaguamish Subbasin 17110008—(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(7) Skykomish Subbasin 17110009—(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(8) Snoqualmie Subbasin 17110010—(i)
(ii)
(9) Snohomish Subbasin 17110011—(i)
(ii)
(10) Lake Washington 17110012—(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(11) Duwamish Subbasin 17110013—(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(12) Puyallup Subbasin 17110014—(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(13) Nisqually Subbasin 17110015—(i)
(ii)
(14) Deschutes 17110016—(i)
(ii)
(15) Skokomish Subbasin 17110017—(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(16) Hood Canal Subbasin 17110018—(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(17) Kitsap Subbasin 17110019—(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(18) Dungeness-Elwha Subbasin 17110020—(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(19) Maps of proposed critical habitat for the Puget Sound steelhead DPS follow:
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 |