Page Range | 9741-10056 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
81 FR 9860 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 9887 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Summary of Benefits and Coverage and Uniform Glossary Required Under the Affordable Care Act | |
81 FR 9945 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulations Project | |
81 FR 9766 - Disclosures of Return Information Reflected on Returns to Officers and Employees of the Department of Commerce for Certain Statistical Purposes and Related Activities | |
81 FR 9888 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 9828 - Applications for New Awards; Training and Information for Parents of Children With Disabilities-Community Parent Resource Centers | |
81 FR 9814 - Applications for New Awards; Training and Information for Parents of Children With Disabilities-Parent Training and Information Centers | |
81 FR 9822 - Applications for New Awards; Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Program | |
81 FR 9930 - Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property Release at Beverly Airport in Beverly, MA | |
81 FR 9763 - Removal of Exemption From Registration for Persons Authorized Under U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or Agreement State Medical Use Licenses or Permits and Administering the Drug Product DaTscan | |
81 FR 9927 - Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Disposal of Airport Property at Berlin Regional Airport in Milan, NH | |
81 FR 9935 - Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Department of Transportation's National Infrastructure Investments Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 | |
81 FR 9929 - Thirty-Ninth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (224) Airport Security Access Control Systems | |
81 FR 9944 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Notice of New Requirements and Procedures for Grant Payment Request Submission | |
81 FR 9933 - Notice of Buy America Waiver | |
81 FR 9928 - Eighty-Fourth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (147) Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems Airborne Equipment | |
81 FR 9927 - Seventeenth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (227) Standards of Navigation Performance | |
81 FR 9926 - Meeting: RTCA Program Management Committee (PMC) | |
81 FR 9809 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee to the United States Delegation to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas | |
81 FR 9787 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod in the Western Aleutian Islands District of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
81 FR 9945 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 9946 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 9805 - Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 | |
81 FR 9925 - Ninety-Fifth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (159) Global Positioning System (GPS) | |
81 FR 9806 - Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 | |
81 FR 9797 - 2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule | |
81 FR 9797 - Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: Leak Detection Methodology Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems | |
81 FR 9928 - Sixty-Fifth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (186) Global Positioning System (GPS) | |
81 FR 9881 - Notice of Availability for Public Review of Mining Plan of Operations for Claims Within Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska | |
81 FR 9922 - Privacy Act; System of Records: Protocol Records, State-33. | |
81 FR 9786 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Resources of the South Atlantic; Trip Limit Reduction | |
81 FR 9856 - ASUSTeK Computer, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment | |
81 FR 9783 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Uniform Procurement Identification (DFARS Case 2015-D011) | |
81 FR 9929 - Forty-Third Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (206) Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services | |
81 FR 9813 - Negotiation of a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Memorandum of Understanding With the Ministry of Defense of Estonia | |
81 FR 9848 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
81 FR 9812 - Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery; Request for Nominations | |
81 FR 9813 - Inland Waterways Users Board Meeting Notice | |
81 FR 9884 - Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
81 FR 9865 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request The Sister Study: A Prospective Study of the Genetic and Environmental Risk Factors for Breast Cancer (NIEHS) | |
81 FR 9865 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request: A Clearance for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Data and Specimen Hub (DASH) | |
81 FR 9879 - Renewal of Approved Information Collection; Control No. 1004-0058 | |
81 FR 9862 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Tobacco Retailers on Tobacco Retailer Training Programs | |
81 FR 9810 - Procurement List; Addition And Deletions | |
81 FR 9811 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions | |
81 FR 9880 - Renewal of Approved Information Collection | |
81 FR 9768 - Mandatory Declassification Review Program | |
81 FR 9809 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
81 FR 9808 - Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
81 FR 9885 - Agency Information Collection Activities Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) | |
81 FR 9808 - Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC); Public Meetings | |
81 FR 9861 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 9947 - Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 9924 - County of Greenville, S.C.-Acquisition Exemption-Rail Line of Greenville County Economic Development Corporation | |
81 FR 9840 - Alpine Pacific Utilities, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
81 FR 9843 - Ketchikan Public Utilities; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
81 FR 9838 - South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
81 FR 9844 - Brookfield Power Piney and Deep Creek, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
81 FR 9841 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
81 FR 9843 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
81 FR 9837 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
81 FR 9835 - Eugene Water and Electric Board; Notice of Designation of Certain Commission Personnel as Non-Decisional | |
81 FR 9837 - Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation; Tucson Electric Power Company; UNS Electric, Inc; UniSource Energy Development Company; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date | |
81 FR 9838 - Arizona Public Service Company; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date | |
81 FR 9836 - Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status | |
81 FR 9845 - Impulsora Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Application To Amend | |
81 FR 9847 - Morongo Transmission LLC; Notice of Petiton for Declaratory Order | |
81 FR 9846 - Cameron Interstate Pipeline LLC; Notice of Application To Amend | |
81 FR 9842 - Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Gaines County Crossover Compressor Station Project | |
81 FR 9841 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
81 FR 9836 - Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Valley Lateral Project | |
81 FR 9847 - Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission, L.L.C.; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Columbia to Eastover Project | |
81 FR 9839 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Rover Pipeline, Panhandle Backhaul, and Trunkline Backhaul Projects | |
81 FR 9846 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
81 FR 9925 - Genesee & Wyoming Inc.-Continuance in Control Exemption-Olympia & Belmore Railroad, Inc. | |
81 FR 9924 - Olympia & Belmore Railroad, Inc.-Lease and Operation Exemption Including Interchange Commitment-BNSF Railway Company | |
81 FR 9790 - Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Cessna Aircraft Company) Airplanes | |
81 FR 9931 - Environmental Impact Statement; Collier County, Florida | |
81 FR 9877 - Fisheries and Habitat Conservation; Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Ballville Dam Project on the Sandusky River, Sandusky County, Ohio | |
81 FR 9799 - Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska | |
81 FR 9856 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities | |
81 FR 9855 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
81 FR 9851 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
81 FR 9850 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
81 FR 9882 - Certain Uncoated Paper From Australia, Brazil, China, Indonesia, and Portugal; Determinations | |
81 FR 9761 - The Food and Drug Administration Food Safety Modernization Act: Prevention-Oriented Import System Regulations and Implementation; Public Meeting | |
81 FR 9932 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review | |
81 FR 9770 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Jamaica Bay and Connecting Waterways, Queens, NY | |
81 FR 9921 - Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Computer Matching Program (SSA/Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service))-Match Number 1304 | |
81 FR 9870 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Identification Card | |
81 FR 9870 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Declaration for Free Entry of Unaccompanied Articles | |
81 FR 9920 - Alabama Disaster # AL-00061 | |
81 FR 9851 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
81 FR 9885 - Labor Certification Process for the Temporary Employment of H-2A and H-2B Aliens in the United States: 2016 Allowable Charges for Agricultural Workers' Meals and for Travel Subsistence Reimbursement, Including Lodging | |
81 FR 9919 - Alaska Disaster #AK-00035 | |
81 FR 9881 - Outer Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, Oil and Gas Lease Sale, Central Planning Area Lease Sale 247; MMAA104000 | |
81 FR 9898 - Brookfield Asset Management Private Institutional Capital Adviser US, LLC et al.; Notice of Application | |
81 FR 9900 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 4 to, and Order Instituting Proceedings to Determine Whether to Approve or Disapprove, a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 4 Thereto, Amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 to Adopt Generic Listing Standards for Managed Fund Shares | |
81 FR 9920 - Oregon Disaster #OR-00080 | |
81 FR 9889 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendments No. 1, No. 3, and No. 4 to, and Order Instituting Proceedings to Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove, a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendments No. 1, No. 3, and No. 4, To Amend BATS Rule 14.11(i) To Adopt Generic Listing Standards for Managed Fund Shares | |
81 FR 9910 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to LMMs and DPMs | |
81 FR 9909 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Correct the Text of ISE Rule 313 | |
81 FR 9920 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review | |
81 FR 9804 - Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling | |
81 FR 9869 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request: The National Physician Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment (NCI) | |
81 FR 9867 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
81 FR 9866 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 9867 - Draft National Toxicology Program Monograph on Immunotoxicity Associated With Exposure to Perfluorooctanoic Acid or Perfluorooctane Sulfonate; Availability of Document; Request for Comments; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 9883 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-American Society of Mechanical Engineers | |
81 FR 9883 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-American Academy of Forensic Sciences | |
81 FR 9884 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-ODVA, Inc. | |
81 FR 9883 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Pistoia Alliance, Inc. | |
81 FR 9883 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Members of SGIP 2.0, Inc. | |
81 FR 9884 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Heterogeneous System Architecture Foundation | |
81 FR 9798 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of Solidago albopilosa (White-Haired Goldenrod) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants | |
81 FR 9800 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Amendments to the Reef Fish, Spiny Lobster, Queen Conch, and Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates Fishery Management Plans of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands | |
81 FR 9864 - Advisory Committee; Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee, Renewal | |
81 FR 9859 - Medicare Program; Meeting of the Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee-April 27, 2016 | |
81 FR 9931 - Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Public Transportation on Indian Reservations Program Project Selections | |
81 FR 9878 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments | |
81 FR 9770 - Approval of Iowa's Air Quality Implementation Plans; Iowa Plan for the 2008 Lead Standard | |
81 FR 9793 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Spokane, Washington: Second 10-Year PM10 | |
81 FR 9778 - D-Glucitol, 1-deoxy-1-(methylamino)-, N-C8-10 | |
81 FR 9772 - Trifloxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerances | |
81 FR 9875 - Enforcement Actions Summary | |
81 FR 9741 - Pistachios Grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico; Increased Assessment Rate | |
81 FR 9743 - Domestic Dates Produced or Packed in Riverside County, California; Decreased Assessment Rate | |
81 FR 9751 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines | |
81 FR 9744 - Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines | |
81 FR 9930 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; General Electric Company | |
81 FR 9871 - Privacy Act; Department of Homeland Security/ALL-038 Insider Threat Program System of Records | |
81 FR 9789 - Privacy Act: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/ALL-038 Insider Threat Program System of Records | |
81 FR 9877 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless | |
81 FR 9749 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
81 FR 9754 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes | |
81 FR 9849 - Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit | |
81 FR 9746 - Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Airplanes | |
81 FR 10026 - Recordkeeping for Timely Deposit Insurance Determination | |
81 FR 9950 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training Activities in the Gulf of Alaska Temporary Maritime Activities Area | |
81 FR 9756 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule implements a recommendation from the Administrative Committee for Pistachios (Committee) for an increase of the assessment rate established for the 2015-16 and subsequent production years from $0.0005 to $0.0035 per pound of assessed weight pistachios handled under the marketing order for pistachios grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. The Committee locally administers the order and is comprised of producers and handlers of pistachios operating within the area of production. Assessments upon pistachio handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The production year begins on September 1 and ends August 31. The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Effective February 29, 2016.
Peter Sommers, Marketing Specialist, or Jeffrey Smutny, Regional Director, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Antoinette Carter, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 983, as amended (7 CFR part 983), regulating the handling of pistachios grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachio handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable pistachios beginning on September 1, 2015, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2015-16 and subsequent production years from $0.0005 to $0.0035 per pound of assessed weight pistachios handled.
The California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachio marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachios. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 2011-12 and subsequent production years, the Committee recommended, and the USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from production year to production year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.
The Committee met on July 9, 2015, and October 20, 2015, and unanimously recommended 2015-16 production year expenditures of $1,056,402 and an assessment rate of $0.0035 per pound of assessed weight pistachios handled to fund Committee expenses. This represents an increase over the prior year's budget and assessment rate. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $1,001,400. The assessment rate of $0.0035 is $0.0030 higher than the rate currently in effect. The Committee's recommended 2015-16 expenditures are $55,002 higher than last year's budgeted expenditures. The primary reason for the increase is to provide $560,000 in funding for Sterile Insect Technology/Navel Orange Worm (SIT/NOW) research. When applied to the Committee's crop estimate for the 2015-16 production year of 265 million pounds, the current assessment rate of $0.0005 would not generate sufficient income to cover anticipated expenses. The assessment rate of $0.0035 per pound of assessed weight pistachios would generate assessment income of $927,500. Anticipated assessment
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-16 production year include $560,000 for SIT/NOW research, $92,401 for administrative expenses, $314,000 for salary and related employee expenses, $10,000 for compliance expenses, and $80,000 for a contingency fund. Budgeted expenses in 2014-15 were $360,000 for Technical Assistance Specialty Crop (TASC) Program research, $125,000 for other research, $117,400 for administrative expenses, $314,000 for salary and related employee expenses, $10,000 for compliance expenses, and $75,000 for a contingency fund. Actual expenses in 2014-15 were significantly lower, at $547,199, as the TASC research was not funded.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by considering anticipated expenses and production levels of California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachios, and other pertinent factors. As mentioned earlier, pistachio production levels are estimated at 265 million pounds, which should generate $927,500 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with other income and financial reserves would provide sufficient revenue for the Committee to meet its budgeted expenses while maintaining its financial reserve within the limit authorized under the order.
The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA based upon a recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each production year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public, and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2015-16 budget and those for subsequent production years would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 1,152 producers of pistachios in the production area and approximately 19 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
Based on Committee data, it is estimated that about 47 percent of the handlers annually ship less than $7,000,000 worth of pistachios, and it is also estimated that 68 percent of the producers have annual receipts less than $750,000. Thus, the majority of handlers in the production area may be classified as large entities, and the majority of the producers may be classified as small entities.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2015-16 and subsequent production years from $0.0005 to $0.0035 per pound of assessed weight pistachios. The Committee unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $1,056,402 and an assessment rate of $0.0035 per pound of assessed weight pistachios. The assessment rate of $0.0035 is $0.0030 higher than the 2014-15 rate. The quantity of assessable pistachios for the 2015-16 production year is estimated at 265 million pounds. Thus, the $0.0035 rate should provide $927,500 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with other income and financial reserves would provide sufficient revenue for the Committee to meet its budgeted expenses while maintaining its financial reserve within the limit authorized under the order.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-16 production year include $560,000 for SIT/NOW research, $92,401 for administrative expenses, $314,000 for salary and related employee expenses, $10,000 for compliance expenses, and $80,000 for a contingency fund. Budgeted expenses in 2014-15 were $360,000 for TASC Program research, $125,000 for other research, $117,400 for administrative expenses, $314,000 for salary and related employee expenses, $10,000 for compliance expenses, and $75,000 for a contingency fund. The reasons for the proposed increase include a significant increase in budgeted expenses in 2015 over actual expenses in 2014, a significantly smaller crop estimate in 2015, and allocation of funds for Sterile Insect Technology/Navel Orange Worm (SIT/NOW) research.
Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered alternative expenditure levels but ultimately determined that 2015-16 expenditures of $1,056,402 were appropriate and that the current assessment rate would generate insufficient revenue to meet its expenses.
According to data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the season average producer price was $3.48 per pound of assessed weight pistachios in 2013 and $3.10 per pound in 2014. A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming production year indicates that the producer price for the 2015-16 production year could range between $3.48 and $3.10 per pound of assessed weight pistachios. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2015-16 production year as a percentage of total producer revenue could range between 0.10 and 0.11 percent.
This action increases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. These costs are offset by the benefits derived from the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachio industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the July 9, 2015, and October 20, 2015, meetings were public and all entities, both large
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0215. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachio handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it also found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Marketing agreements, Pistachios, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 983 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
(a) On and after September 1, 2015, an assessment rate of $0.0035 per pound is established for California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachios.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that implemented a recommendation from the California Date Administrative Committee (committee) to decrease the assessment rate established for the 2015-16 and subsequent crop years from $0.20 to $0.10 per hundredweight of dates handled under the marketing order (order). The committee locally administers the marketing order and is comprised of producers and handlers of dates grown or packed in Riverside County, California. The interim rule to decrease the assessment rate was necessary to allow the Committee to reduce its financial reserve while still providing adequate funding to meet program expenses.
Effective February 29, 2016.
Terry Vawter, Senior Marketing Specialist, or Jeff Smutny, Regional Director, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or Email:
Small businesses may obtain information on complying with this and other marketing order regulations by viewing a guide at the following Web site:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 987, both as amended (7 CFR part 987), regulating the handling of dates produced or packed in Riverside County, California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
Under the order, Riverside County, California, date handlers are subject to assessments, which provide funds to administer the order. Assessment rates issued under the order are intended to be applicable to all assessable dates for the entire crop year and continue
In an interim rule published in the
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 70 producers of dates in the production area and 11 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. The Small Business Administration defines small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000. (13 CFR 121.201)
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), data for the most-recently completed crop year (2014) shows that about 3.54 tons, or 7,080 pounds, of dates were produced per acre. The 2014 producer price published by NASS was $1,190 per ton. Thus, the value of date production per acre in 2014-15 averaged about $4,213 (3.54 tons times $1,190 per ton). At that average price, a producer would have to farm over 178 acres to receive an annual income from dates of $750,000 ($750,000 divided by $4,213 per acre equals 178.02 acres). According to committee staff, the majority of California date producers farm less than 178 acres. Thus, it can be concluded that the majority of date producers could be considered small entities. In addition, according to data from the committee staff, the majority of handlers of California dates have receipts of less than $7,500,000 and may also be considered small entities.
This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment rate established for the committee and collected from handlers for the 2015-16 and subsequent crop years from $0.20 to $0.10 per hundredweight of dates. The committee unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $59,250 and an assessment rate of $0.10 per hundredweight of dates, which is $0.10 lower than the rate previously in effect. Applying the $0.10 per hundredweight assessment rate to the estimated crop at 29,000,000 pounds (290,000 hundredweight) should provide $29,000 in assessment income. Thus, income derived from handler's assessments, along with other income and funds from the committee's authorized reserve, should be adequate funding to meet program expenses.
This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers; however, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers.
In addition, the committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California date industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and encouraged to participate in committee deliberations on all issues. Like all committee meetings, the June 25, 2015, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, “Vegetable and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders.” No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Riverside County, California, date handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before December 28, 2015. No comments were received. Therefore, for reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.
To view the interim rule, go to:
This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175, and 13563; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).
After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the
Dates, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
This AD becomes effective April 1, 2016.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Philip Haberlen, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7770; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the
There have been reports of Arriel 1E2 engines having experienced an uncommanded in-flight shut-down (IFSD) due to an untimely activation of the tachometer box shut-off system which was activated by the power turbine monitoring function of the tachometer box.
This condition, if not corrected, could potentially lead to further cases of IFSD, possibly resulting in a forced landing.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 73147, November 24, 2015).
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.
Turbomeca S.A. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 292 77 0844, Version B, dated July 6, 2015. The service information describes procedures for removing pre-TU 369 tachometer boxes.
We estimate that this AD affects 200 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3 hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $51,000.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective April 1, 2016.
None.
(1) This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1E2 turboshaft engines with tachometer boxes with the following part number (P/N) and serial number (S/N) combinations:
(i) P/N 9580116170—all S/Ns
(ii) P/N 9580116260—all S/Ns
(iii) P/N 9580116900—all S/Ns
(iv) P/N 9580117110—all S/Ns
(v) P/N 9580117550—all S/Ns 1499 and below with or without suffix letters and all S/Ns 1500 and above that do not contain the suffix letters EL.
(2) This AD applies only to Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1E2 turboshaft engines with
This AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded in-flight shutdowns (IFSDs). We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the tachometer box, which could lead to failure of the engine, IFSD, and loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 1,600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, remove the affected tachometer box from the engine.
(2) Reserved.
You may take credit for the action required by paragraph (e) of this AD if you performed the action before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin 292 77 0844, Version A, dated March 4, 2015.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Philip Haberlen, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7770; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2015-0175, dated August 24, 2015, which includes Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 292 77 0844, Version B, dated July 6, 2015, for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(3) Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 292 77 0844, Version B, dated July 6, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD, can be obtained from Turbomeca S.A., using the contact information in paragraph (h)(4) of this AD.
(4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15.
(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-500 airplanes, and Model ATR72-102, -202, -212, and -212A airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of chafed wires between electrical harnesses. This AD requires inspections for wire discrepancies, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damaged wiring and incorrect installation of the wiring harness and adjacent air ducts that could lead to wire harness chafing and arcing, possibly resulting in an on-board fire.
This AD becomes effective April 1, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 1, 2016.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this final rule, contact ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional, 1, Allée Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-500 airplanes, and Model ATR72-102, -202, -212, and -212A airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Since the NPRM was issued, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0171, dated August 20, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-500 airplanes, and Model ATR72-102, -202, -212, and -212A airplanes. The MCAI states:
An erroneous cockpit indication has been reported on an in-service aeroplane. Subsequent investigation identified chafed wiring between harnesses (2M-2S-6M) and the metallic structure of the cargo lining panel above the electronic rack 90VU shelf. The chafing was most likely the result of incorrect harness installation. In some cases, the bracket, which supports the harnesses, could be incorrectly positioned. Consequently, the wiring harnesses, and in certain configurations, the adjacent air duct, could be incorrectly routed.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to wiring harness chafing and arcing, possibly resulting in an on-board fire.
Prompted by this unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2014-0052 (later revised) [
Since EASA AD 2014-0052R1 [
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0052R1, which is superseded, and requires inspection, and, depending on findings, applicable corrective action(s), on the adjusted range of aeroplanes.
EASA AD 2015-0171, dated August 20, 2015, replaces EASA AD 2014-0052R1, dated April 7, 2014, which was the referenced MCAI in the NPRM. The revised MCAI adds certain airplanes and removes others from the applicability, but does not affect any U.S.-registered airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
Since the NPRM was issued, Avions de Transport Régional has issued Service Bulletin ATR42-92-0024, Revision 03, dated January 21, 2015; and Service Bulletin ATR72-92-1032, Revision 03, dated January 21, 2015. No additional work is required for airplanes that have accomplished the actions specified in any previous version. We have revised paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD to reference this revised service information. We have revised paragraph (i) of this AD to give credit for actions done before the effective date of this AD using the following service bulletins.
• Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR42-92-0024, Revision 01, dated January 16, 2014.
• Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR42-92-0024, Revision 02, dated April 17, 2014.
• Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR72-92-1032, Revision 01, dated January 16, 2014.
• Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR72-92-1032, Revision 02, dated April 17, 2014.
We have also revised paragraph (c) of this AD to refer to the manufacturer serial numbers of the affected airplanes as identified in EASA AD 2015-0171, dated August 20, 2015.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional has issued the following service bulletins.
• Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR42-92-0024, Revision 03, dated January 21, 2015. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the electrical harness routing on top of the 90VU electrical rack, and modification if necessary.
• Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR72-92-1032, Revision 03, dated January 21, 2015. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the electrical harness routing on top of the 90VU electrical rack, and modification if necessary.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 1 airplane of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $85, or $85 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 3 work-hours and require parts costing $82, for a cost of $337 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective April 1, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to the ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Model ATR42-500 airplanes, serial numbers 443 through 1006 inclusive, and 1014; except serial numbers 811, 1002, and 1005.
(2) Model ATR72-102, -202, -212, and -212A airplanes, serial numbers 475 through 969 inclusive, 971 through 988 inclusive, 1025, 1028 through 1069 inclusive, 1072, and 1089 through 1175 inclusive; except serial numbers 872, 887, 893, 956, 1042, and 1162.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 92, Electrical Routing.
This AD was prompted by a report of chafed wires between electrical harnesses. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damaged wiring and incorrect installation of the wiring harness and adjacent air ducts that could lead to wire harness chafing and arcing, possibly resulting in an on-board fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR42-92-0024, Revision 03, dated January 21, 2015; and Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR72-92-1032, Revision 03, dated January 21, 2015; as applicable.
(1) Do a general visual inspection for damage of the electrical wires of harnesses 2M-2S-6M.
(2) Do a general visual inspection for correct routing of electrical bundle 2M-2S-6M, and correct routing of the air duct.
(1) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, any damage is found on the electrical wires: Before further flight, repair the wires, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR42-92-0024, Revision 03, dated January 21, 2015; and Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR72-92-1032, Revision 03, dated January 21, 2015; as applicable.
(2) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, electrical bundle 2M-2S-6M and/or an air duct is found to be incorrectly routed: Within 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection for correct positioning of the bracket, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR42-92-0024, Revision 03, dated January 21, 2015; and Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR72-92-1032, Revision 03, dated January 21, 2015; as applicable.
(i) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, the bracket is found to be correctly positioned: Within 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR42-92-0024, Revision 03, dated January 21, 2015; and Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR72-92-1032, Revision 03, dated January 21, 2015; as applicable.
(ii) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, the bracket is found to be missing or incorrectly positioned: Within 500 flight hours after the inspection required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service bulletins specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(6) of this AD, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR42-92-0024, dated June 6, 2013.
(2) Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR42-92-0024, Revision 01, dated January 16, 2014.
(3) Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR42-92-0024, Revision 02, dated April 17, 2014.
(4) Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR72-92-1032, dated June 6, 2013.
(5) Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR72-92-1032, Revision 01, dated January 16, 2014.
(6) Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR72-92-1032, Revision 02, dated April 17, 2014.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0171, dated August 20, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR42-92-0024, Revision 03, dated January 21, 2015.
(ii) Avions de Transport Régional Service Bulletin ATR72-92-1032, Revision 03, dated January 21, 2015.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional, 1, Allée Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the skin lap splices at certain stringers in certain fuselage sections are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD) on aging Model 777 airplanes that have accumulated at least 45,000 total flight cycles. This AD requires inspections to detect cracking of fuselage skin lap splices in certain fuselage sections, and corrective actions if necessary; modification of left-side and right-side lap splices; and post-modification repetitive inspections for cracks in the modified lap splices, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the skin lap splices, and consequent risk of sudden decompression and the inability to sustain limit flight and pressure loads.
This AD is effective April 1, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 1, 2016.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Eric Lin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6412; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
An anonymous commenter expressed support for the NPRM.
Boeing requested that we revise the NPRM to specify that DAH analysis indicates that potential multi-site damage that could lead to WFD does not occur until at least 45,000 total flight cycles on aging Model 777 airplanes.
We agree with the commenter's request. We have revised the
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspections to detect cracking of fuselage skin lap splices, modification to the skin lap splices, repetitive inspections for cracks in the modified lap splices, and repairs. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 21 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective April 1, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the skin lap splices at certain stringers in certain fuselage sections are subject to widespread fatigue damage on aging Model 777 airplanes that have accumulated at least 45,000 total flight cycles. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the skin lap splices, and consequent risk of sudden decompression and the inability to sustain limit flight and pressure loads.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as provided by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014: Do Part 1, inspection “A,” of the modification area for cracks; Part 2, inspection “B,” of the modification area for cracks; and Part 3, inspection “C,” of the modification area for scribe lines and cracks; as applicable; and do all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
(1) Inspection “A” includes an external phased array ultrasonic inspection for cracks in the lower/overlapped skin of the stringer S-14 left and right (L/R) lap splices between fuselage station 655 and station 1434, and an open hole high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for skin cracks at the upper and lower fastener rows of the stringer S-14 L/R lap splices.
(2) Inspection “B” includes the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(iv) of this AD.
(i) A detailed inspection for cracks of any skin panel common to a stringer S-14 L/R lap splice between fuselage station 655 and station 1434 that has a scribe line 0.001 inch or deeper.
(ii) Either an ultrasonic inspection or a surface HFEC inspection for cracks (depending on the location of the scribe line(s)) of any skin panel common to a stringer S-14 L/R lap splice between fuselage station 655 and station 1434 that has a scribe line 0.001 inch or deeper.
(iii) An external phased array ultrasonic inspection for cracks in the lower/overlapped skin of the stringer S-14 L/R lap splices between fuselage station 655 and station 1434.
(iv) An open hole HFEC inspection for skin cracks at the upper and lower fastener rows of the stringer S-14 L/R lap splices.
(3) Inspection “C” includes the inspections for scribe lines and cracks specified in paragraphs (g)(3)(i), (g)(3)(ii), and (g)(3)(iii) of this AD on stringer S-14 L/R lap splice between fuselage station 655 and station 1434 on both sides of the airplane.
(i) A detailed inspection for scribe lines. If any scribe line is found during the inspection required by this paragraph, the actions include the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(3)(i)(A) and (g)(3)(i)(B) of this AD.
(A) A detailed inspection for cracks of the scribe line area(s).
(B) Either an ultrasonic inspection or a surface HFEC inspection for cracks (depending on the location of the scribe line(s)).
(ii) An external phased array ultrasonic inspection for cracks in the lower/overlapped skin of the stringer S-14 L/R lap splices between fuselage station 655 and station 1434.
(iii) An open hole HFEC inspection for skin cracks at the upper and lower fastener rows of the stringer S-14 L/R lap splices.
(1) Where Paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time “after the effective date of this AD.”
(2) If, during accomplishment of any inspection required by this AD, any condition is found for which Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for special repair instructions or supplemental instructions for the modification, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, do the repair or modification using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014: Do the left-side and right-side lap splice modification, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014: Do a post-modification internal surface HFEC inspection for skin cracks in the modified lap splices on both sides of the airplane; and do all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection of the modified lap splices thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (k)(4)(ii) apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Eric Lin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6412; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0052, dated October 10, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B54, -1B58, -1B64, -1B67, and -1B70 turbofan engine models. This AD was prompted by reports of two separate, single engine in-flight shutdowns
This AD is effective April 1, 2016.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Christopher McGuire, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7120; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all GE GEnx-1B54, -1B58, -1B64, -1B67, and -1B70 turbofan engine models. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and the FAA's response to each comment.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) expressed support for the NPRM (80 FR 51965).
United Airlines (United) requested that the Applicability paragraph be changed to more appropriately address engine models. United stated that the GEnx-1B54 and GEnx-1B58 be removed and GEnx-1B64G03, 1B64G04, 1B67G03, 1B67G04, 1B70G03 and 1B70G04 be added to paragraph (c) Applicability. United indicated this change would improve clarity and accomplishment of the AD.
We disagree. This AD applies to all GE GEnx-1B54, -1B58, -1B64, -1B67, and -1B70 turbofan engine models, as listed in the GEnx type certificate data sheet. We did not change this AD.
United requested that the Compliance paragraph be changed to clarify maintenance actions. United requested that in paragraph (e) the phrase, “ . . . remove the cracked blade” be changed to read, “ . . . remove the engine containing the cracked blade.” United reasoned that removing the cracked blade is not a maintenance option.
We partially agree. We agree with changing the compliance language to include disposition of a cracked blade. We disagree with using the phrase, “ . . . remove the engine containing the cracked blade” because removal of the cracked blade addresses the unsafe condition.
We revised paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) of this AD to include, “ . . . remove the cracked blade from service. . . .”
Boeing and General Electric Company (GE) requested that the Summary and Unsafe Condition paragraphs be clarified to reflect that two separate, single engine IFSDs occurred, prompting the need for this AD.
We agree. We changed the Summary and Unsafe Condition paragraphs of this AD to read: “This AD was prompted by reports of two separate, single engine in-flight shutdowns, caused by HPT rotor stage 1 blade failure. . . .”
Boeing requested that the Costs of Compliance paragraph specifically state that the projected costs are for only the initial inspection and not for repetitive inspections. Boeing indicated this is needed to clarify the cost of compliance.
We agree. We changed the Costs of Compliance paragraph of this AD to include, “We also estimate that it will take about 1 hour per engine to comply with the initial inspection in this AD.”
Japan Airlines (JAL) and GE suggested that in paragraph (e)(1) Compliance, the need to inspect within 1,000 cycles since new (CSN) may not be representative of the fleet.
We disagree. The initial blade inspection compliance time was based on the safety evaluation of the known failures. Any person may make a request for an Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) to the compliance times of this AD using the procedures listed herein. We did not change this AD.
GE requested that the Compliance paragraph be changed to clarify that the criteria of multiple cracks should be based on an individual blade and not multiple blades, each with a single crack.
We agree. We changed paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this AD to read: “. . . , or if more than one axial crack of any length is found on one blade, remove the cracked blade from service before further flight.”
We revised the service information in the Related Information section of this AD to Revision 01 of GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin (SB) No. 72-0267 R01, dated August 10, 2015. GE made an editorial change to this SB that did not affect its contents.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 51965) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 51965).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We estimate that this AD will affect 4 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 hour per engine to comply with the initial inspection in this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this AD to U.S. operators to be $340.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective April 1, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to all General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B54, -1B58, -1B64, -1B67, and -1B70 turbofan engine models with high-pressure turbine (HPT) rotor stage 1 blade, part number 2305M26P06, installed.
This AD was prompted by reports of two separate, single engine in-flight shutdowns, caused by HPT rotor stage 1 blade failure. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT rotor stage 1 blades, which could lead to failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Perform an initial borescope inspection (BSI) of the convex surface of the HPT rotor stage 1 blades for axial cracks from the platform to 30% span, within 1,000 blade cycles since new or 25 cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and disposition as follows:
(i) If any axial crack with a length greater than or equal to 0.3 inch is found, or if any axial crack of any length turning in a radial direction is found, or if more than one axial crack of any length is found on one blade, remove the cracked blade from service before further flight.
(ii) If an axial crack is found with a length greater than or equal to 0.2 inch and less than 0.3 inch, remove the cracked blade from service within 10 blade cycles.
(iii) If an axial crack is found with a length greater than or equal to 0.1 inch and less than 0.2 inch, inspect the cracked blade within 50 blade cycles since last inspection (CSLI).
(iv) If an axial crack is found with a length less than 0.1 inch, inspect the cracked blade within 100 blade CSLI.
(v) If no cracks were found, perform a BSI of the blades within 125 blade CSLI.
(2) Thereafter, perform a repetitive BSI of the convex surface of the HPT rotor stage 1 blades for axial cracks from the platform to 30% span within 125 blade CSLI and disposition as specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(v) of this AD, or remove the blades from service.
For the purpose of this AD, a “blade cycle” is defined as the number of engine cycles that a set of rotor blades has accrued, regardless of the engine(s) in which they have operated.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Christopher McGuire, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7120; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin No. 72-0267 R01, dated August 10, 2015 can be obtained from GE using the contact information in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295 airplanes. This AD requires a general visual inspection of the rudder control system to confirm correct alignment and installation of the adjustment device, and repair if necessary. This AD was prompted by a report of disconnection of the kinematic chain from the co-pilot rudder pedals to the rudder control bars located under the cockpit floor; subsequent investigation revealed that the failure was caused by disconnection of the pedal adjustment device from the adjustment actuator. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct incorrect alignment and incorrect installation of the adjustment device, which could lead to loss of the rudder control from the affected side and possibly result in reduced control of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective March 14, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 14, 2016.
We must receive comments on this AD by April 11, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Defense and Space S.A., Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 3127; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; fax 425-227-1149.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0012, dated January 14, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295 airplanes. The MCAI states:
An occurrence was reported involving disconnection of the kinematic chain from the co-pilot rudder pedals to the rudder control bars located under the cockpit floor. Subsequent investigation revealed that the failure was caused by disconnection of the pedal adjustment device from the adjustment actuator.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to loss of the rudder control from the affected side, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus Defence and Space (Airbus D&S) issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-27-0002 and AOT-C295-27-0001, as applicable to aeroplane model, to provide inspection instructions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time general visual inspection (GVI) of the rudder control system and correctness of the installation connection between the adjustment actuators and the adjustment devices of the rudder pedals and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
Airbus Defence and Space has issued AOT AOT-C295-27-0001, Revision 1, dated September 29, 2015; and AOT-CN235-27-0002, Revision 1, dated September 22, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection of the rudder control system to confirm correct alignment and installation of the adjustment device. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because incorrect alignment and
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 29 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $2,465, or $85 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 8 work-hours and require parts costing $177, for a cost of $857 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective March 14, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by a report of disconnection of the kinematic chain from the co-pilot rudder pedals to the rudder control bars located under the cockpit floor; subsequent investigation revealed that the failure was caused by disconnection of the pedal adjustment device from the adjustment actuator. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct incorrect alignment and incorrect installation of the adjustment device, which could lead to loss of the rudder control from the affected side and possibly result in reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Do a general visual inspection of the rudder control system to confirm correct alignment and installation of the adjustment device, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defence and Space Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-C295-27-0001, Revision 1, dated September 29, 2015; or Airbus Defence and Space AOT AOT-CN235-27-0002, Revision 1, dated September 22, 2015; as applicable.
If, during the general visual inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any discrepancy is found, as specified in Airbus Defence and Space AOT AOT-C295-27-0001, Revision 1, dated September 29, 2015; or Airbus Defence and Space AOT AOT-CN235-27-0002, Revision 1, dated September 22, 2015; as applicable: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus Defense and Space S.A.'s EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Defence and Space AOT AOT-C295-27-0001, dated October 23, 2014; or Airbus Defence and Space AOT AOT-CN235-27-0002, dated October 23, 2014; as applicable.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0012, dated January 14, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Defence and Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-C295-27-0001, Revision 1, dated September 29, 2015.
(ii) Airbus Defence and Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-CN235-27-0002, Revision 1, dated September 22, 2015.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Defense and Space S.A., Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 3127; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that a repetitive test is needed to inspect the components on airplanes equipped with a certain air distribution system configuration. This AD requires doing repetitive testing for correct operation of the equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental control system, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also requires, for certain airplanes, installing new relays and doing wiring changes to the environmental control system. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct latent failures of the equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental control system, which, in combination with a cargo fire event, could result in smoke in the flight deck and/or main cabin, and possible loss of aircraft control.
This AD is effective April 1, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 1, 2016.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Stanley Chen, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6585; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing requested that we revise the unsafe condition to clarify that latent failures of the equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental control system alone do not create the unsafe condition addressed in the NPRM. Boeing explained that the unsafe condition is a combination of a failure of both systems along with a cargo fire event, which could lead to a smoke penetration hazard.
We agree to revise the description of the events leading to the unsafe condition, and have revised the
Boeing requested that we revise the NPRM to clarify that the hazard being mitigated by the NPRM is smoke penetration into the occupied areas of the airplane—the flight deck or the main cabin (not just the flight deck). Boeing stated that failure of the equipment cooling system and/or low pressure environmental control system, in combination with a cargo fire event, could lead to cargo smoke penetration into the flight deck and/or main cabin, either of which could be catastrophic.
We agree that clarification is needed to specify that the hazard being mitigated by the NPRM is smoke penetration into flight deck and main cabin, which are occupied areas of the airplane. We have revised the
Boeing, Delta Airlines (Delta), United Airlines (United), and Yuta Kobayashi requested that we revise the repetitive interval for the operational test from 9,000 flight cycles to 9,000 flight hours. Boeing stated that a 9,000 flight-hour interval is supported by a fault tree analysis, whereas the repetitive interval of 9,000 flight cycles required by the NPRM is not. Mr. Kobayashi stated that a correction needed to be made since Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014, states the repetitive interval in flight hours.
We agree with the request to revise the repetitive interval since the repetitive interval in flight hours matches the interval stated in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014. In the proposed AD, we inadvertently specified flight “cycles” instead of flight “hours.” We have revised the interval in paragraph (g) of this AD from flight “cycles” to flight “hours.”
The Discussion section of the NPRM stated that a repetitive test is needed on airplanes equipped with an air distribution system that had been reconfigured in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122. Boeing requested that we revise the NPRM to clarify that all Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900 and -900ER airplanes are subject to the repetitive testing (as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014)—not just those airplanes with reconfigured air distribution systems. Boeing added that Model 737-700C and 737-900 airplanes were not subject to the same changes and thus were not included in the effectivity of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009.
We agree that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014, describes procedures for the operational testing of the equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental control systems, and that all 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900 and -900ER airplanes are subject to this repetitive testing. However, the Discussion section that appeared in the NPRM is not repeated in this final rule. Therefore no change has been made to this final rule in this regard.
Delta requested that we revise the NPRM to exclude airplanes that have not been modified by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009. Delta further requested that these airplanes be subject to evaluation for additional separate rulemaking.
Delta stated that it believes two separate airworthiness concerns must be addressed. Delta stated that the first concern identified by the NPRM is a potential latent failure of the equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental control system; Delta noted this condition is addressed by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014.
Delta stated that the second concern, not identified by the NPRM, is the need to properly isolate the occupied areas of the airplane from smoke intrusion in the event of a cargo compartment fire; Delta noted this condition is addressed by the following service information:
• Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1121, Revision 1, dated October 26, 2009.
• Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009.
• Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1135, Revision 1, dated November 13, 2008.
• Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1163, Revision 1, dated December 17, 2009.
Delta stated this service information introduces, among other tasks, better sealing of the cargo compartment and changes to the environmental control system to keep the cargo compartment at a lower pressure than that of the cabin in order to keep smoke from a cargo compartment fire out of occupied areas.
We disagree with the request to exclude the airplanes identified by the commenter and consider separate rulemaking for those airplanes. The primary airworthiness concern addressed by the requirements in this AD is the lack of a procedure to detect and correct latent failures of the equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental control system, which, in combination with a cargo fire event, could result in smoke in the flight deck and/or main cabin, and possible loss of aircraft control. This unsafe condition affects all Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER airplanes, regardless of whether Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009, has been done. Therefore, all Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER airplanes are subject to the repetitive testing in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014, not just those airplanes reconfigured using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009.
For certain airplanes, Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-
In addition, the installation and changes specified in paragraph B. “Concurrent Requirements” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009, will need to be implemented, if not already done, in order accomplish the concurrent requirements as specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009. These measures are necessary to properly isolate the occupied areas of the aircraft from smoke penetration in the event of a cargo compartment fire, such as changes to the cargo compartment sealing and equipment cooling system to keep the cargo compartment at a lower pressure than the cabin pressure. Therefore, we have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.
Delta and Southwest Airlines (Southwest) requested that the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM be revised to capture the costs of the following service information since they are identified as “Concurrent Requirements” in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009:
• Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1121, Revision 1, dated October 26, 2009.
• Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1135, Revision 1, dated November 13, 2008.
• Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1163, Revision 1, dated December 17, 2009.
Delta stated these concurrent service bulletins add a significant burden to operators in terms of labor and time since they amount to 190 additional work-hours. Delta added that since these concurrent actions add significant change in scope, it is necessary to withdraw the existing proposed rule, allow operators the opportunity to comment on their incorporation, and reissue a revised rule with a new comment period. Additionally, Delta asked that these documents be specified by their explicit revision level in order to ensure the correct intended compliance actions are satisfied.
We agree to add the labor and parts costs for concurrent accomplishment of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009, because it is a requirement of this final rule for Group 1 airplanes; the costs for this action were inadvertently omitted from the NPRM.
We also acknowledge the installation and changes specified in paragraph B. “Concurrent Requirements” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009, may also need to be done for certain airplanes. We have therefore revised the Costs of Compliance section of this final rule by adding 208 work-hours and a parts cost of $27,323 for the concurrent action.
We do not agree to withdraw the existing NPRM and reissue a revised NPRM with a new comment period. To delay this final rule would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists. However, under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, we may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.
Jet2.com requested that compliance guidance be given for airplanes equipped with Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST02076LA (
We agree to clarify the concurrent requirements of this AD. Paragraph B., “Concurrent Requirements,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009, refers to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1135, dated December 12, 2007, for certain changes. However, Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1135, dated December 12, 2007, inadvertently specified concurrent accomplishment of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1206, dated January 11, 2006. Boeing subsequently issued Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1135, Revision 1, dated November 13, 2008, which no longer identifies Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1206, dated January 11, 2006, as concurrent service information. We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to clarify the concurrent requirements and state that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1206, dated January 11, 2006, is not required by this AD.
American requested that we clarify the initial compliance times for airplanes that have not yet been delivered, since the proposed AD specifies a compliance time for the initial testing of only in-service airplanes, but not airplanes that are in production. American also requested a more definitive method of determining aircraft effectivity than relying on “the `Get Effectivity' function on myboeingfleet.com” as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014.
We agree that clarification is necessary. Group 3 airplanes in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014, are identified as those having line numbers 1701 and all line numbers after 1701. It is not necessary to use the `Get Effectivity' function on “myboeingfleet.com” because airplanes in production are Group 3 airplanes. The compliance time for Group 3 airplanes as specified in the NPRM is within 10 months. However, we have determined that for airplanes having line numbers 4923, 4924, and 4926 and subsequent, which were delivered after the issuance of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014, a compliance time of “before the accumulation of 9,000 total flight hours” will provide an acceptable level of safety. We have coordinated this change with Boeing. As a result, we have restructured paragraph (g) to include new subparagraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2).
United requested that we clarify the initial compliance times for the test for correct operation of the equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental control system of the
We agree that clarification is necessary. This AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD. This provision was specified in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD, and is retained in this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Aeroflot requested that we refer to Boeing Maintenance Planning Document B737 MPD 21-050-00. Aeroflot stated that the MPD and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014, refer to the same task specified in Boeing Airplane Maintenance Manual 21-27-00-700.
We disagree with the request. Although this final rule does not refer to Boeing B737 MPD 21-050-00 as a method of compliance, operators may apply for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for these actions in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the MPD provides an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE (
We agree with the commenter that Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE (
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014, which describes procedures for repetitive testing for correct operation of the smoke clearance mode of the equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental control system, and applicable corrective actions.
We also reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009, which describes procedures for installing new relays and doing wiring changes to the environmental control system.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 1,372 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary system fault isolation and replacements that would be required based on the results of the operational test. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective April 1, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2120, Air Distribution System.
This AD was prompted by a determination that repetitive inspection is needed to inspect the components on airplanes equipped with a certain air distribution system configuration. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct latent failures of the equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental control system, which, in combination with a cargo fire event, could result in smoke in the flight deck and/or main cabin, and possible loss of aircraft control.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable times specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, do a test for correct operation of the smoke clearance mode of the equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental control system, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 9,000 flight hours.
(1) For airplanes other than those identified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD: At the applicable times identified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
(2) For airplanes having line numbers 4923, 4924, and 4926 and subsequent: Before the accumulation of 9,000 total flight hours.
For Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014: Before or concurrently with accomplishing the initial operational test required of paragraph (g) of this AD, install new relays and do wiring changes to the environmental control system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009. When the actions required by this paragraph are done, the installation and changes specified in paragraph B. “Concurrent Requirements” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009, must also be done. However, operators should note that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1206, dated January 11, 2006, is not required by this AD.
Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(3)(i) and (j)(3)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Stanley Chen, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6585; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014.
(ii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of public meeting.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing a public meeting entitled “FDA Food Safety Modernization Act: Prevention-Oriented Import System Regulations and Implementation.” The public meeting will provide importers and other interested persons an opportunity to discuss import safety regulations and programs, including final rules for foreign supplier verification programs (FSVPs) for importers of food for humans and animals (the FSVP final rule) and accreditation of third-party certification bodies (the third-party certification final rule). Participants will also be briefed on the status of FDA's Voluntary Qualified Importer Program (VQIP), which is still in development. Additionally, the public meeting will provide importers and other interested persons an opportunity to discuss FDA's comprehensive planning effort for the next phase of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act implementation relating to import safety programs, which includes establishing the operational framework for these programs and plans for guidance documents, training, education, and technical assistance.
See section III, “How to Participate in the Public Meeting” in the
See section III, “How to Participate in the Public Meeting” in the
The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) (Pub. L.111-353), signed into law by President Obama on January 4, 2011, enables FDA to better protect public health by helping to ensure the safety and security of the food supply. FSMA amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) to establish the foundation of a modernized, prevention-based food safety system. Among other things, FSMA directs FDA to issue regulations requiring preventive controls for human food and animal food, setting standards for produce safety, and requiring importers to perform certain activities to help ensure that the food they bring into the United States is produced in a manner consistent with U.S. safety standards.
In the
The FSVP final rule requires importers of food to verify that their foreign suppliers use processes and procedures that provide the same level of public health protection as the preventive controls and produce safety regulations, where applicable, and also to verify that the food they import is not adulterated and is not misbranded with respect to food allergen labeling.
The third-party certification final rule adopts regulations to provide for accreditation of third-party certification bodies to conduct food safety audits of foreign entities, including registered foreign food facilities, and to issue food and facility certifications under FSMA. Certification will be required to establish VQIP eligibility. To prevent potentially harmful food from reaching U.S. consumers, in specific circumstances FDA also may require a food offered for import to be accompanied by a certification.
On June 5, 2015, we published a notice of availability of a draft guidance for industry on VQIP for importers of human or animal food (80 FR 32136). The draft guidance describes and answers questions about VQIP. To ensure that we consider comments on the draft guidance before we complete a final version of the guidance, we invited electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by August 19, 2015.
The FSVP and third-party certification final rules and related fact sheets are available on FDA's FSMA Web page located at
The FSVP and third-party certification final rules are two of several final rules that will establish the foundation of, and central framework for, the modern food safety system envisioned by Congress in FSMA.
FDA is holding the public meeting on FSMA's prevention-oriented import system to brief participants on the key components of the FSVP and third-party certification final rules; brief participants on the status of the VQIP; discuss the plans for guidance documents related to import safety, as well as training, education, and technical assistance; provide an update on the development of a risk-based industry oversight framework that are at the core of FSMA; and answer questions about these import programs.
The public meeting is an opportunity for FDA to share its current thinking on implementation plans for programs related to import safety. We encourage interested persons to provide feedback during the meeting on any ideas that we present at the public meeting related to the operational aspects of FSMA
There will be an opportunity for stakeholders who are unable to participate in person to join the meeting via Webcast. (See section III for more information on the Webcast option.)
Following the public meeting, FDA plans to continue dialogue on implementation of these import safety programs with a series of regional meetings across the United States.
We are holding the public meeting on March 21, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m., at FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Wiley Auditorium, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740. Due to limited space and time, we encourage all persons who wish to attend the meeting to register in advance. There is no fee to register for the public meeting, and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited. Onsite registration will be accepted, as space permits, after all preregistered attendees are seated.
Those requesting an opportunity to make an oral presentation during the time allotted for public comment at the meeting are asked to focus their remarks on the implementation or operational aspects of the import safety programs. To make such a presentation, please submit a request and provide the specific topic or issue to be addressed. Due to the anticipated high level of interest in presenting public comment and the limited time available, we are allocating 3 minutes to each speaker to make an oral presentation. Speakers will be limited to making oral remarks; there will not be an opportunity to display materials such as slide shows, videos, or other media during the meeting. If time permits, individuals or organizations that did not register in advance may be granted the opportunity to make an oral presentation. We would like to maximize the number of individuals who make a presentation at the meeting and will do our best to accommodate all persons who wish to make a presentation or express their opinions at the meeting.
We encourage persons and groups who have similar interests to consolidate their information for presentation by a single representative. After reviewing the presentation requests, we will notify each participant before the meeting of the approximate time their presentation is scheduled to begin, and remind them of the presentation format (
We encourage interested persons to provide feedback on any ideas that we present at the public meeting related to the operational aspects of FSMA implementation.
Table 1 provides information on participation in the public meeting.
Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it will be accessible at
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Final rule.
On November 25, 2014, the Drug Enforcement Administration published the interim final rule titled “Exemption from Registration for Persons Authorized Under U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or Agreement State Medical Use Licenses or Permits and Administering the Drug Product DaTscan.” The Drug Enforcement Administration is hereby removing this interim final rule as it is no longer needed, as a result of the removal of [
Barbara J. Boockholdt, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152, Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces Titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.
Under the CSA, each controlled substance is classified into one of five schedules based upon its potential for abuse, its currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the degree of dependence the substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 812 (a) and (b), the current list of all scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822(a)(1), every person who manufactures or distributes any controlled substance or list I chemical, or who proposes to engage in the manufacture or distribution of any controlled substance or list I chemical, shall obtain annually a registration issued by the Attorney General in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Attorney General. Further, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822(a)(2), every person who dispenses, or who proposes to dispense, any controlled substance, shall obtain from the Attorney General a registration issued in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Attorney General.
The Attorney General however may, by regulation, waive the requirement for registration of certain manufacturers, distributors, or dispensers if the Attorney General finds it consistent with the public health and safety pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822(d). The Attorney General delegated this authority to the Administrator of the DEA, 28 CFR 0.100(b), who in turn redelegated that authority to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”). 28 CFR part 0, subpart R, App. section 7.
On November 25, 2014, the DEA published an interim final rule (IFR) exempting from registration persons authorized under Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or Agreement State Medical Use Licenses or permits and administering the drug product DaTscan directly to patients for diagnostic purposes. 79 FR 70085. The IFR was intended to alleviate the regulatory burdens on those administering the drug product DaTscan, to allow more patients to receive important diagnostic testing. Additionally, because persons who administer DaTscan are subject to strict NRC/Agreement State requirements, the DEA determined in the IFR that the waiver from registration of persons who administer DaTscan was consistent with the public health and safety. The IFR provided an opportunity for interested persons to submit written comments on the rulemaking on or before January 26, 2015.
However, effective September 11, 2015, the DEA removed [
Because the decontrol of [
The DEA received six comments on the IFR. Two comments were from GE Healthcare, the manufacturer of the drug product DaTscan, one comment was from a professor of pharmaceutical sciences, two comments were from nuclear medicine industry groups, and one comment was from a Parkinson's Disease advocacy group.
Five commenters requested that the DEA follow the November 2, 2010, recommendation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to decontrol the drug product DaTscan. One commenter stated that the DEA is bound by the HHS' recommendation. Additionally, five of these commenters cited the lack of abuse of the drug product DaTscan as a reason why it should be decontrolled.
As stated in the IFR, the DEA was continuing to review the control status of [
One commenter expressed concern that the DEA did not undertake notice and comment procedures before promulgating the IFR. The same commenter stated that the IFR did not meet the legal requirements for expedited rulemaking nor for the issuance of a rule with an immediate effective date, asserting that the IFR did not meet the requirements of the good cause exception to make a rule immediately effective.
The IFR alleviated certain registration, security, recordkeeping, reporting, and labeling requirements for persons authorized under the NRC, or Agreement State medical use licenses or permits, who administer the drug product DaTscan to a patient for diagnostic purposes. The APA requires the publication of a substantive rule to be made not less than 30 days before its effective date. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). However, the APA allows an exception for “a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). The DEA found that the IFR met this criterion.
Although a notice of proposed rulemaking was not published with regard to the drug product DaTscan, the DEA published an IFR with request for comment on November 25, 2014. The comment period for the IFR closed on January 26, 2015, and in that 60-day time frame, the DEA received six comments on the rulemaking, and has considered those comments herein.
One commenter stated that the registration exemption should be expanded to include nuclear pharmacies (also known as radiopharmacies) that distribute DaTscan, because it would increase patient access to DaTscan.
Three commenters asserted concern that the IFR could not directly exempt anyone from state requirements since most states would not automatically incorporate federal exemptions into their corresponding regulatory systems. The commenters expressed further concern that each state would require an independent rulemaking process to implement the registration exemption.
With respect to the relationship between Federal and State law in the area of controlled substances, the IFR did not alter State law. The CSA shall not be “construed as indicating an
This lack of uniformity between Federal and State law with respect to the treatment of controlled substances is not uncommon, and it is encountered by registrants and non-registrants that lawfully handle controlled substances. For example, some states control substances that are not Federally controlled or control substances more stringently than the Federal controls (
In addition, the exemption provided by the IFR was very similar to the DEA-authorized exemption for certain chemical preparations pursuant to 21 CFR 1308.23. In accordance with 21 CFR 1308.23 and 1308.24, certain preparations or mixtures containing one or more controlled substances can be exempt from regulations pertaining to registration, security, labeling, records, and reports. In 2014, the DEA exempted almost 1,500 preparations from certain regulatory requirements, a number that has increased considerably since 2011 when the DEA exempted 390 chemical preparations. It is the DEA's understanding that there has been no confusion with respect to State laws which apply to these chemical preparations. As the registration exemption in the IFR was similar to the exemptions provided for certain chemical preparations, the DEA believed at the time of the IFR that it was unlikely that the IFR would create complications with State laws.
Three commenters discussed the issue of disposal of the drug product DaTscan. One commenter expressed concern that hospitals and other practitioners currently registered with the DEA and administering the drug product DaTscan are required to change their existing disposal practices with respect to DaTscan as a result of the IFR. The commenter noted that the IFR language can be read to impose new requirements for those handling the drug product DaTscan. The commenter also stated that it was not practice for the current distributor to take back unused portions of DaTscan from those administering the drug product, and that the current distributor is not licensed as a reverse distributor. The commenter also stated that the DEA did not specify the volume of the drug product DaTscan which would constitute “unused” product, and inquired about the use of DEA Forms 41 and 222.
Another commenter expressed concern that requiring exempt entities (
At the time of the IFR, the DEA understood that it was common practice for radiopharmacies to take back unused radioactive material in vials and dosage unit syringes, as well as empty vials and empty dosage unit syringes from the medical use licensee, as long as they were originally provided by the radiopharmacy. Further, the DEA understood that as long as the radiopharmacy is authorized under its NRC or Agreement State license for this return, and does not receive anything that it did not send to the medical use licensee, the radiopharmacy is not considered a waste broker in accordance with NRC or Agreement State regulations. The DEA appreciates the commenter's clarification of the business practices relating to the drug product DaTscan.
As discussed, effective September 11, 2015, the DEA removed [
One commenter expressed concern that the DEA determined that the IFR was a non-significant regulatory action and had, therefore, circumvented interagency review. The commenter stated that the IFR represents a drastic and notable departure from established practice in the healthcare industry. The commenter was also concerned that the interaction with existing laws and regulations promulgated by other federal agencies should have resulted in interagency review, and the process undertaken by the DEA for the IFR will have a precedential effect on future DEA rulemakings.
One commenter stated that the DEA is unable to waive the CSA's requirement (21 U.S.C. 825) that controlled substances be labeled as such, and that the DEA is unable to waive labeling requirements enforced by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
This final rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” section 1(b) General Principles of Regulation.
The Department of Justice has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) applies to rules that are subject to notice and comment under section 553(b) of the APA. As explained above and in the interim final rule, the DEA determined that there was good cause to exempt the IFR from notice and comment. Consequently, the RFA does not apply to this final rule.
This rule does not involve a collection of information within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501
This rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 804). This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more, a major increase in costs or prices, or have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. However, pursuant to the CRA, the DEA has submitted a copy of this final rule to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.
The APA requires the publication of a substantive rule to be made not less than 30 days before its effective date. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). However, one exception is “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” Because the DEA removed [
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Controlled substances, Drug abuse, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 21 CFR part 1301 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 821, 822, 823, 824, 831, 871(b), 875, 877, 886a, 951, 952, 953, 956, 957, 958, 965.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations and removal of temporary regulations.
This document contains final regulations that authorize the disclosure of certain items of return information to the Bureau of the Census (Bureau) in conformance with section 6103(j)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). These regulations finalize temporary regulations that were made pursuant to a request from the Secretary of Commerce. These regulations require no action by taxpayers and have no effect on their tax liabilities. Thus, no taxpayers are likely to be affected by the disclosures authorized by this guidance.
William Rowe, (202) 317-5093 (not a toll-free number).
This document contains amendments to 26 CFR part 301. Section 6103(j)(1)(A) authorizes the Secretary of Treasury to
By letter dated May 10, 2013, the Secretary of Commerce requested that additional items of return information be disclosed to the Bureau for purposes of structuring a census that costs less per housing unit and still maintains high quality results. A major cost in previous decennial censuses was the high number of follow-up, in-person attempts to collect information from housing units that did not return a completed census form. The Bureau intends to conduct research and testing for the next decennial census using administrative data from federal agencies, state agencies, and commercial vendors to determine whether the number of non-response follow-up visits can be reduced through the strategic reuse of this data. Specifically, the Bureau aims to achieve the following research initiatives: (1) Validating and enhancing the Master Address File; (2) Designing and assigning resources to carry out the next decennial census; (3) Un-duplicating public, private, and census lists; and (4) Imputing missing data. All administrative data from the above sources, including return information, will be integrated into the Bureau's data system that is used for the next decennial census and housing counts and will be done in a manner such that the source (for example, commercial vendor, IRS, or Social Security Administration) will not be associated with any data element in the final decennial person-level census records.
On July 15, 2014, a temporary regulation (TD 9677) was published in the
The temporary regulations authorized disclosure of additional items of return information from the Form 1040, “U.S. Individual Income Tax Return”, and disclosure of items from the Form 1098, “Mortgage Interest Statement”. Specifically, § 301.6103(j)(1)-1T of the temporary regulations authorizes the disclosure of the following additional items of return information from Forms 1040: (1) Electronic Filing System Indicator; (2) Return Processing Indicator; and (3) Paid Preparer Code. Section 301.6103(j)(1)-1T authorizes the disclosure of the following items of return information from Form 1098: (1) Payee/Payer/Employee Taxpayer Identification Number; (2) Payee/Payer/Employee Name (First, Middle, Last, Suffix); (3) Street Address; (4) City; (5) State; (6) ZIP Code (9 digit); (7) Posting Cycle Week; (8) Posting Cycle Year; and (9) Document Code. These temporary regulations apply to disclosures to the Bureau of the Census made on or after July 15, 2014, and expire on or before July 14, 2017.
Both comments opposed publication of the regulations and questioned the underlying authority for the IRS to disclose federal tax return information. Contrary to the views expressed in these comments, section 6103(j)(1) specifically authorizes the IRS to disclose returns or return information to the Bureau of the Census for the purpose of, but only to the extent necessary in, the structuring of censuses and national economic accounts and conducting related statistical activities authorized by law. The final regulations under § 301.6103(j)(1)-1 are being issued under the authority of section 6103(j)(1). Accordingly, the recommendation of both commentators that the regulations not be published has not been adopted.
Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. In addition, because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6). Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking preceding this regulation was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small businesses.
The principal author of these final regulations is William Rowe, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure & Administration).
Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(xviii) Electronic Filing System Indicator.
(xix) Return Processing Indicator.
(xx) Paid Preparer Code.
(7) Officers or employees of the Internal Revenue Service will disclose the following return information reflected on Form 1098 “Mortgage Interest Statement” to officers and employees of the Bureau of the Census for purposes of, but only to the extent necessary in, conducting and preparing, as authorized by chapter 5 of title 13, United States Code, demographic statistics programs, censuses, and surveys—
(i) Payee/Payer/Employee Taxpayer Identification Number;
(ii) Payee/Payer/Employee Name (First, Middle, Last, Suffix);
(iii) Street Address;
(iv) City;
(v) State;
(vi) ZIP Code (9 digit);
(vii) Posting Cycle Week;
(viii) Posting Cycle Year; and
(ix) Document Code.
(e)
Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Direct final rule with request for comments.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) is publishing this direct final rule pursuant to Executive Order 13526, relating to classified national security information. It provides procedures for members of the public to request from ODNI a Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) of information classified under the provisions of Executive Order 13526 or predecessor orders such that the agency may retrieve it with reasonable effort. This rule also informs requesters where to send requests for an MDR.
This rule is effective April 26, 2016 without further action, unless adverse comment is received by March 28, 2016. If adverse comment is received, ODNI will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Jennifer L. Hudson, 703-874-8085.
It is the policy of the ODNI to act in matters relating to national security information in accordance with Executive Order 13526 and directives issued thereunder by the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). The purpose of this rule is to assist in implementing specific sections of Executive Order 13526 concerning the Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR). This is being issued as a direct final rule without prior notice of proposed rulemaking as allowed by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A) for rules of agency procedure and interpretation.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8, Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we certify that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it applies only to Federal agencies.
Declassification, Information, Intelligence, National security information.
50 U.S.C. 3001; E.O. 13526, 75 FR 707, 3 CFR, 2009 Comp, p. 298.
(a)
(b)
For purposes of this part:
For general information on the regulation in this part or to submit a request for a Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR), please direct your communication by mail to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Director of the Information Management Division, Washington, DC 20511; by facsimile to (703) 874-8910; or by email to
The ODNI welcomes suggestions for improving the administration of our MDR program in accordance with Executive Order 13526. Suggestions should identify the specific purpose and the items for consideration. The ODNI will respond to all communications and take such actions as determined feasible and appropriate.
Address all communications to the point of contact as specified in § 1704.3. Clearly describe, list, or label said communication as an MDR Request.
MDR requests will not be accepted from a foreign government entity or any representative thereof. MDR requests will not be accepted for documents required to be submitted for pre-publication review or other administrative process pursuant to an approved nondisclosure agreement; for information that is the subject of pending litigation; nor for any document or material containing information contained within an operational file exempted from search and review, publication, and disclosure under the FOIA. If the ODNI has reviewed the requested information for declassification within the past two years, the ODNI will not conduct another review, but the D/IMD will notify the requester of this fact and the prior review decision. Requests will not be accepted from requesters who have outstanding fees for MDR or Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the ODNI or another federal agency.
An MDR request shall describe the document or material containing the information with sufficient specificity to enable the ODNI to locate it with a reasonable amount of effort.
(a) Requesters making requests directly to the ODNI shall be responsible for paying all fees under this regulation.
(b) Requesters making requests directly to the ODNI shall be responsible for reproduction costs as follows: Fifty cents per photocopied page and $10.00 per CD.
(c) Applicable fees will be due even if the search locates no responsive information or some or all of the responsive information must be withheld under applicable authority.
(1)
(ii) Professional/Supervisory—$40.00 per hour (or fraction thereof).
(iii) Manager/Senior Professional—$72.00 per hour (or fraction thereof).
(2)
(ii) Professional/Supervisory—$40.00 per hour (or fraction thereof).
(iii) Manager/Senior Professional—$72.00 per hour (or fraction thereof).
(3)
(ii) Manager/Senior Professional—$72.00 (or fraction thereof).
(iii) ODNI will not charge review fees for time spent resolving general legal or policy issues regarding the responsive information.
(iv) Fees may be paid by a check or money order made payable to the Treasurer of the United States.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d) The IMD FOIA Branch Chief, in consultation with the D/IMD and the Classification Management Branch Chief, will ordinarily be the deciding official on initial reviews of MDR requests to the ODNI.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(b)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Marine Parkway Bridge across the Jamaica Bay, mile 3.0, at Queens, New York. This deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to replace the auxiliary clutch shafts at the bridge.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on March 14, 2016 to 5 p.m. on March 25, 2016.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0123] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4330, email
The Marine Parkway Bridge, mile 3.0, across the Jamaica Bay, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 55 feet at mean high water and 59 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.795(a).
The waterway is transited by commercial oil barge traffic of various sizes.
The bridge owner, MTA Bridges and Tunnels, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate auxiliary clutch shafts replacement at the bridge.
Under this temporary deviation, the Marine Parkway Bridge shall remain in the closed position from 7 a.m. on March 14, 2016 to 5 p.m. March 25, 2016.
Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass.
The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our Local Notice and Broadcast to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operations can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the 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 taking final action to approve Iowa's attainment demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment area of Council Bluffs, Pottawattamie County, Iowa, received by EPA on February 9, 2015. The applicable standard addressed in this action is the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008. EPA believes that the SIP submitted by the state satisfies the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), and will bring the designated portions of Council Bluffs, Iowa into attainment of the 0.15 microgram per cubic meter (μg/m
This final rule is effective on March 28, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0582. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Stephanie Doolan, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7719, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA.
In this document, EPA is granting final approval of Iowa's attainment demonstration SIP for the lead NAAQS nonattainment area in portions of Council Bluffs, Pottawattamie County, Iowa. The applicable standard addressed in this action is the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008. EPA believes that the SIP submitted by the state satisfies the applicable requirements of the CAA identified in EPA's Final Rule (73 FR 66964, October 15, 2008), and will bring the area into attainment of the 0.15 microgram per cubic meter (μg/m
The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of the docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened October 2, 2015, the date of its publication in the
EPA is taking final action to amend the Iowa SIP to approve Iowa's SIP for the Council Bluffs lead NAAQS nonattainment area in Pottawattamie County, Iowa. The applicable standard addressed in this action is the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008 (73 FR 66964).
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the CAA, 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 that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
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 26, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this rule does not affect the finality of this rulemaking 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 future rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(d) * * *
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of trifloxystrobin in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Bayer CropScience requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective February 26, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before April 26, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0709, is available at
Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0709 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before April 26, 2016. Addresses for
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0709, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the commodity terms for several tolerances to reflect the correct commodity definition. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for trifloxystrobin including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with trifloxystrobin follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
Trifloxystrobin exhibits very low toxicity following single oral, dermal and inhalation exposures. It is a strong dermal sensitizer and a mild dermal and eye irritant. In repeated dose tests in rats, the liver is the target organ for trifloxystrobin; toxicity is induced following oral and dermal exposure for 28 days. Liver effects characterized by an increase in liver weights and an increased incidence of hepatocellular hypertrophy and/or hepatocellular necrosis were seen in rats, mice, and dogs. There is no concern for neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity in the database. In the rabbit developmental toxicity study, an increase in the incidence of fused sternabrae was seen at a dose 10 times higher than the maternal lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL). In the rat reproduction study, both parents and offspring showed decreases in body weight during lactation. The rat and rabbit developmental and the rat reproduction toxicity data do not demonstrate an increase in susceptibility in the fetus or other offspring. Trifloxystrobin is classified as: “Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on both the negative results in the battery of mutagenicity tests (except at a cytoxic dose in one
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for trifloxystrobin used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III B of the final rule published in the
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of trifloxystrobin and its major degradation product for acute exposures are estimated to be 29 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water, and 427 ppb for ground water. For chronic non-cancer exposure assessments, EDWCs are estimated to be 23 ppb for surface water and 365 ppb for ground water. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the acute (427 ppb) and chronic (365 ppb) dietary assessments in the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model—Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) food categories of “water, direct, all sources” and “water, indirect, all sources.”
3.
Trifloxystrobin is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Ornamental plants and turfgrass. EPA assessed residential exposure from relevant registered trifloxystrobin products using the Agency's 2012 Residential Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) along with updates in dermal risk assessment hazard and policy regarding body weight in addition to the following assumptions:
i.
ii.
Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
4.
EPA has not found trifloxystrobin to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and trifloxystrobin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that trifloxystrobin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for trifloxystrobin is complete.
ii. There is no indication that trifloxystrobin is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that trifloxystrobin results in increased susceptibility in
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The exposure databases are complete or are estimated based on data that reasonably account for potential exposures. The exposure assessments will not underestimate the potential dietary (food and drinking water) or non-dietary exposures for infants and children from the use of trifloxystrobin. The acute and chronic dietary food exposure assessment was conservatively based on 100 PCT assumptions and conservative ground water drinking water modeling estimates. The dietary drinking water assessment utilizes water concentration values generated by models and associated modeling parameters which are designed to provide conservative, health protective, high-end estimates of water concentrations, and are not likely to be exceeded. In addition, the residential post-application assessment is based upon the residential SOPs employing surrogate study data and reasonable “worst-case” assumptions. These data and assessments are reliable and are not expected to underestimate exposure and risk posed by trifloxystrobin to adults or children as well as incidental oral exposure of young children (1-2 years old).
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of trifloxystrobin is not expected.
3.
Trifloxystrobin is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to trifloxystrobin.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 300 for adults and 120 for children 1 to < 2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for trifloxystrobin is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
4.
5.
6.
Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography with nitrogen phosphorus detection (GC/NPD), Method AG-659A) is available to enforce the tolerance expression for the combined residues of trifloxystrobin and CGA-321113 in plant and livestock commodities. The lowest level of method validation (LLMV) is equivalent to the limit of quantitation (LOQ) which was 0.010 ppm for each analyte in/on all matrices.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has established MRLs for trifloxystrobin in or on lettuce, head at 15 ppm; celery at 1 ppm; brussel sprouts at 0.1 ppm; cabbage at 0.5 ppm; flower head
These tolerances, with exception to grape and potato, cannot be harmonized with the Codex MRLs because the MRLs for those commodities are expressed in terms of trifloxystrobin (parent only) while U.S. tolerances are based on the combined residues of trifloxystrobin and its acid metabolite CGA-321113, expressed in parent equivalents. Therefore, harmonization is not possible for these commodities as the Codex MRLs are too low based on the U.S. residue definition for tolerance enforcement. For grape and potato, the U.S. is establishing MRLs for the requested representative crop groups; fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C. These MRLs will be lower than Codex, but identical to Canadian MRLs (for grape and potato). This will permit harmonization with the existing Canadian MRLs as requested by the petitioner and facilitate trade with Canada.
The Agency is revising the commodity terms for the requested tolerances to reflect the common commodity vocabulary currently used by the Agency. Specifically, head and stem
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of trifloxystrobin, benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-α-(methoxyimino)-2-[[[[1-[3-(trifluoromethyl) phenyl]ethylidene] amino]oxy]methyl]-, methyl ester, and the free form of its acid metabolite CGA-321113, (E,E)-methoxyimino-[2-[1-(3-trifluoromethyl-phenyl)-ethylideneaminooxymethyl]-phenyl]acetic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of trifloxystrobin, in or on
The existing tolerance for leaf petioles subgroup 4B, is amended from 3.5 ppm to 9 ppm based on new celery residue data at zero day (pre-harvest interval) PHI. The existing tolerance for potato at 0.04 ppm is being removed because it is included with the new tolerance being established for tuberous and corm vegetables (crop subgroup 1C) at 0.04 ppm. Similarly, the current tolerances for grape at 2.0 ppm and strawberry at 1.1 ppm are being removed as they are included in the new tolerances for the small fruit vine climbing (subgroup 13-07F) at 2.0 ppm, and low growing berries (subgroup 13-07G) at 1.5 ppm, respectively.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
The additions and revision read as follows:
(a)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of D-glucitol, 1-deoxy-1-(methylamino)-, N-C
This regulation is effective February 26, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before April 26, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0249, is available at
Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0249 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before April 26, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0249, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for D-glucitol, 1-deoxy-1-(methylamino)-, N-C
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by D-glucitol, 1-deoxy-1-(methylamino)-, N-C
D-Glucitol, 1-deoxy-1-(methylamino)-, N-C
A 28-day repeat dose oral toxicity study was conducted with Wistar rats. In this study, rats were treated via gavage with D-glucitol, 1-deoxy-1-(methylamino)-, N-C
In a reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test, rats were dosed for 54 days with D-glucitol, 1-deoxy-1-(methylamino)-, N-C
A gene reverse mutation study with
There were no neurotoxicity data
There were no data regarding immunotoxicity. However evidence of potential immunotoxicity was observed in the 28-day oral toxicity study in the rat. In this study, atrophy is seen in the spleen and bone marrow at 500 mg/kg/day. These effects will be protected since the established chronic reference dose (cRfD) is 1.04 mg/kg/day.
There were no study data presented specifically addressing metabolism. Modeling data using the DEREK (Nexus) and METEOR modeling systems indicate 80% absorption via the gastrointestinal system and less than 1% via dermal absorption. The major route of excretion is via the urine.
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified. Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold
An acute effect was not found in the database therefore an acute dietary assessment is not necessary. The reproduction/developmental toxicity screening study in the rat was selected for the toxicological endpoint for use in the chronic dietary risk assessment. In this study, no effects are observed up to 312.5 mg/kg/day. The standard uncertainty factors (100X) are applied for intra-and interspecies variation and an additional uncertainty factor (3X) is applied to account for extrapolation from subchronic to chronic exposures. EPA identified the uncertainty factor of 3X as protective rather than 10X is because there was no toxicity observed at doses up to 312.5 mg/kg/day in an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 422 study. Dermal and inhalation absorption are assumed to be 100%. For all short- and intermediate-term residential risk assessments, the toxicological endpoint selected for use in the assessment is taken from the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening study in the rat. In this study, no effects are observed up to 312.5 mg/kg/day. The level of concern for residential risk assessments is for MOEs of less than 300.
1.
2.
3.
D-Glucitol, 1-deoxy-1-(methylamino)-, N-C
4.
EPA has not found D-glucitol, 1-deoxy-1-(methylamino)-, N-C
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for D-glucitol, 1-deoxy-1-(methylamino)-, N-C
ii. There were no neurotoxicity data
iii. There were no data regarding immunotoxicity. However evidence of potential immunotoxicity was observed in the 28-day oral toxicity study in the rat. In this study, atrophy is seen in the spleen and bone marrow at 500 mg/kg/day. These effects will be protected since the established cRfD is 1.04 mg/kg/day.
iv. There was no evidence of increased susceptibility of infants and children in the OECD 422 study.
v. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to D-glucitol, 1-deoxy-1-(methylamino)-, N-C
1.
2.
3.
D-glucitol, 1-deoxy-1-(methylamino)-, N-C
4.
5.
6.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of D-glucitol, 1-deoxy-1-(methylamino)-, N-C
Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.910 for D-glucitol, 1-deoxy-1-(methylamino)-, N-C
This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to conform with the uniform procurement identification procedures implemented in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).
Ms. Jennifer Johnson, telephone 571-372-6100.
DoD published a proposed rule in the
DoD reviewed the public comments in the development of the final rule. A discussion of the comments and the significant changes made to the rule as a result of those comments is provided as follows:
This final rule makes the following significant changes from the proposed rule:
• DFARS 204.1601(b)—The date of October 1, 2015, which was the date DoD Components were encouraged to start implementation, has been removed since that date has passed.
• DFARS 204.1603(a)(3)—Clarifies use of the letters C, H, M, and T in the ninth position of a procurement instrument identifier (PIID).
• DFARS 232.905(b)(1)(iii)—Clarifies that basic contract or ordering agreement numbers may be included on invoices and receiving reports in addition to the task order or delivery order numbers.
Regarding the proposed language to allow contractors to include the basic contract and ordering agreement numbers on invoices, DoD concurs and has incorporated this language into the final rule.
The final rule includes some minor editorial changes for clarity and consistency in the rule text.
• The examples of proper supplementary PIID numbering, previously located under DFARS 204.1603 are moved to DFARS PGI.
• The proposed rule deleted the text at DFARS 239.7407. This text is not deleted in the final rule.
• A cross reference to relocated text is updated at DFARS 243.172.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
A final regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
This final rule amends the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to conform with the uniform procurement instrument identification procedures implemented in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The amendments to the DFARS accomplish the following: (1) Removal of the language that is duplicative of FAR language; (2) relocation of the remaining, nonduplicative DFARS language to subpart 204.16 to align with FAR subpart 4.16; (3) establishment of a timeline for implementation within DoD of the changes now required by the FAR; (4)confirmation that DoD will continue to use procurement instrument identifiers (PIIDs) that are 13 characters in length; and (5) revision of procedures for payment documentation and Wide Area WorkFlow (WAWF) to implement the FAR changes to task order and delivery order PIIDs.
There were no significant issues raised by the public in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis provided in the proposed rule.
This rule is not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The primary changes that will impact DoD contractors from this final DFARS rule are essentially limited to the structure of task and delivery order numbers issued under DoD ordering instruments, as well as modifications to these orders.
This rule does not add any new information collection, reporting, or recording keeping requirements. The existing recordkeeping requirements are limited to properly recording contract and other procurement instrument identification numbers and inserting them into documents (
No alternatives were determined to be available that will accomplish the objectives of the rule.
The rule contains information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35); however, these changes to the DFARS do not impose additional information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 0704-0248 entitled “Material Inspection and Receiving Report.”
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 204, 232, 243, and appendix F to chapter 2 are amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i) A continued contract—
(A) Does not constitute a new procurement;
(B) Incorporates all prices, terms, and conditions of the predecessor contract effective at the time of issuance of the continued contract;
(C) Operates as a separate contract independent of the predecessor contract once issued; and
(D) Shall not be used to evade competition requirements, expand the scope of work, or extend the period of performance beyond that of the predecessor contract.
(ii) When issuing a continued contract, the contracting officer shall—
(A) Issue an administrative modification to the predecessor contract to clearly state that—
(
(
(B) Follow the procedures at PGI 204.1601(c).
(a)
(3)
(A) DoD will use three of the letters reserved for departmental or agency use in FAR 4.1603(a)(3) in this position as follows:
(
(
(
(B) Do not use other letters identified in FAR 4.1603(a)(3) as “Reserved for future Federal Governmentwide use” or “Reserved for departmental or agency use” in position 9 of the PIID.
(C) Do not use the letter C or H for contracts or agreements with provisions for orders or calls.
(4)
(b)
(2)(ii)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
Detailed guidance on mapping PIID and supplementary PIID numbers stored in the Electronic Document Access system to data elements reported in the Federal Procurement Data System can be found in PGI 204.1670.
(a) Circumstances may exist in which the numeric order of the modifications to a contract is not the order in which the changes to the contract actually take effect.
(b) In order to determine the sequence of modifications to a contract or order, the modifications will be applied in the following order—
(1) Modifications will be applied in order of the effective date on the modification;
(2) In the event of two or more modifications with the same effective date, modifications will be applied in signature date order; and
(3) In the event of two or more modifications with the same effective date and the same signature date, procuring contracting office modifications will be applied in numeric order, followed by contract administration office modifications in numeric order.
(b)(1)(iii) For task and delivery orders numbered in accordance with FAR 4.1603 and 204.1603, the 13-character order number may serve as the contract number on invoices and receiving reports. The contract or agreement number under which the order was placed may be omitted from invoices and receiving reports. The contractor may choose to identify both the contract number and the 13-character order number on invoices and receiving reports. Task and delivery orders numbered with a four-position alpha-numeric call or order serial number shall include both the 13-position basic contract Procurement Instrument Identifier and the four-position order number.
(b) * * *
(1) Contract no/delivery order no.
(i) For stand-alone contracts, enter the 13-position alpha-numeric basic Procurement Instrument Identifier (PIID) of the contract. For task and delivery orders numbered in accordance with FAR 4.1603 and DFARS 204.1603, enter the 13-character order number. The contract or agreement number under which the order was placed may be omitted from the WAWF RR. Alternatively, the contractor may choose to enter the contract number on the WAWF RR in addition to the 13-character order number. If the order has only a four-position alpha-numeric call or order serial number, enter both the 13-position basic contract PIID and the four-position order number.
(ii) Except as indicated in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this appendix, do not enter supplementary numbers used in conjunction with basic PIIDs to identify—
(A) Modifications of contracts and agreements;
(B) Modifications to calls or orders; or
(C) Document numbers representing contracts written between contractors.
(iii) When shipping instructions are furnished and shipment is made before receipt of the confirming contract modification (SF 30, Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract), enter a comment in the Misc. Info Tab to this effect. This will appear in the Comments section of the printed WAWF RR.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; trip limit reduction.
NMFS reduces the commercial trip limit for vermilion snapper in or from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, 555 lb (252 kg), round weight. This trip limit reduction is necessary to protect the South Atlantic vermilion snapper resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, March 2, 2016, until 12:01 a.m., local time, July 1, 2016.
Rick DeVictor, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery in the South Atlantic includes vermilion snapper and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council prepared the FMP. The FMP is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The commercial ACL (commercial quota) for vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic is divided into two 6-month time periods, January through June and July through December. For the January 1 through June 30, 2016, fishing season, the commercial quota is 388,703 lb (176,313 kg), gutted weight, 431,460 lb (195,707 kg), round weight (50 CFR 622.190(a)(4)(i)(D)).
Under 50 CFR 622.191(a)(6)(ii), NMFS is required to reduce the commercial trip limit for vermilion snapper from 1,000 lb (454 kg), gutted weight, 1,110 lb (503 kg), round weight, when 75 percent of the fishing season commercial quota is reached or
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic vermilion snapper and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.191(a)(6)(ii) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this commercial trip limit reduction constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary, because the rule establishing the trip limit has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the trip limit reduction. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest, because any delay in reducing the commercial trip limit could result in the commercial quota being exceeded. There is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the vermilion snapper resource, since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action would require time and increase the probability that the commercial sector could exceed its quota.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod, including for the Community Development Quota program (CDQ), in the Western Aleutian Islands district of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the Western Aleutian Islands district Pacific cod harvest limit of the 2016 total allowable catch (TAC) in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 23, 2016, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2016.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (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 Western Aleutian Islands district Pacific cod harvest limit of the 2016 TAC in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI is 3,377 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (80 FR 11919, March 5, 2015) and inseason adjustment (81 FR 184, January 5, 2016). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the Area 543 Pacific cod harvest limit of the 2016 Pacific cod TAC in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 2,377 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 1,000 mt as incidental catch in directed fishing for other species. 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 Pacific cod in the Western Aleutian Islands district of the BSAI.
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 directed fishing closure of Pacific cod in the Western Aleutian Islands district of the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of February 22, 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
Privacy Office, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is giving concurrent notice of a newly established system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 for the “Department of Homeland Security/ALL-038 Insider Threat Program System of Records” and this proposed rulemaking. In this proposed rulemaking, the Department proposes to exempt portions of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.
Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2015-0050 or by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For questions please contact: Karen L. Neuman, (202-343-1717), Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled “DHS/ALL-038 Insider Threat Program System of Records.”
DHS has created a Department-wide system, known as the Insider Threat Program system of records to manage insider threat matters within DHS. The Insider Threat Program was mandated by E.O. 13587, “Structural Reforms to Improve the Security of Classified Networks and the Responsible Sharing and Safeguarding of Classified Information,” issued October 7, 2011, which requires Federal agencies to establish an insider threat detection and prevention program to ensure the security of classified networks and the responsible sharing and safeguarding of classified information with appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties. Insider threats include: Attempted or actual espionage, subversion, sabotage, terrorism, or extremist activities directed against the Department and its personnel, facilities, resources, and activities; unauthorized use of or intrusion into automated information systems; unauthorized disclosure of classified, controlled unclassified, sensitive, or proprietary information or technology; and indicators of potential insider threats. The Insider Threat Program system may include information from any DHS Component, office, program, record, or source, and includes records from information security, personnel security, and systems security for both internal and external security threats.
Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/ALL-038 Insider Threat Program system of records may be shared with other DHS components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS may share information with appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in the DHS ALL-038 system of records notice.
DHS is issuing this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. The system of records notice is published elsewhere in this
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which federal government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals when systems of records maintain information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors.
The Privacy Act allows government agencies to exempt certain records from the access and amendment provisions. If an agency claims an exemption, however, it must issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to make clear to the public the reasons why a particular exemption is claimed.
DHS is claiming exemptions from certain requirements of the Privacy Act for DHS/ALL-038 Insider Threat Program System of Records. Some information in DHS/ALL-038 Insider Threat Program System of Records relates to official DHS national security, law enforcement, and intelligence activities. These exemptions are needed to protect information relating to DHS activities from disclosure to subjects or others related to these activities. Specifically, the exemptions are required to: preclude subjects of these activities from frustrating these
In appropriate circumstances, where compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement purposes of this system and the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemptions may be waived on a case by case basis.
A notice of system of records DHS/ALL-038 Insider Threat Program System of Records is also published in this issue of the
Freedom of information, Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend chapter I of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; (6 U.S.C. 101
74. The DHS/ALL-038 Insider Threat Program System of Records consists of electronic and paper records and will be used by DHS and its components. The DHS/ALL-038 Insider Threat Program System of Records System of Records is a repository of information held by DHS in connection with various missions and functions, including, but not limited to the enforcement of civil and criminal laws; investigations, inquiries, and proceedings there under; and national security and intelligence activities. The DHS/ALL-038 Insider Threat Program System of Records contains information that is collected by, on behalf of, in support of, or in cooperation with DHS and its components and may contain personally identifiable information collected by other Federal, State, local, tribal, foreign, or international government agencies.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8), (e)(12), (f), (g)(1), and (h). Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(5), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f).
Where a record received from another system has been exempted in that source system under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), DHS will claim the same exemptions for those records that are claimed for the original primary systems of records from which they originated and claims any additional exemptions set forth here.
Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified on a case-by-case basis and determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:
(a) From subsection (c)(3) and (4) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS and the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process.
(b) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or another agency. Access to the records could permit the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and would impose an unreasonable administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continually reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose security-sensitive information that could be detrimental to homeland security.
(c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of Federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.
(d) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of Information from Individuals) because requiring that information be collected from the subject of an investigation would alert the subject to the nature or existence of the investigation, thereby interfering with that investigation and related law enforcement activities.
(e) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to Subjects) because providing such detailed information could impede law enforcement by compromising the existence of a confidential investigation or reveal the identity of witnesses or confidential informants.
(f) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), because portions of this system are exempt from the individual access provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, and therefore DHS is not required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to such access. Providing notice to individuals with respect to existence of records pertaining to them in the system of records or otherwise setting up procedures pursuant to which individuals may access and view records pertaining to themselves in the system would undermine investigative efforts and reveal the identities of witnesses, and potential witnesses, and confidential informants.
(g) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of Information) because with the collection of information for law enforcement purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. Compliance with subsection (e)(5) would preclude DHS agents from using their investigative training and exercise of good judgment to both conduct and report on investigations.
(h) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because compliance would interfere with DHS's ability to obtain, serve, and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law enforcement mechanisms that may be filed under seal and could result in disclosure of investigative techniques, procedures, and evidence.
(i) From subsection (g)(1) (Civil Remedies) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Textron Aviation Inc. Model 680 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by Cessna's report of a manufacturing defect which affects the durability of the aft canted bulkhead metallic structure. The manufacturing defect directly affects the bond integrity of the vertical and horizontal stiffeners on the aft canted bulkhead metallic structure. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the aft canted bulkhead, and repair if necessary. This proposed AD would also require a modification, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. We are proposing this AD to prevent disbonding of the horizontal and vertical stiffeners on the aft canted bulkhead. Loss of bond integrity could result in a structural failure that could lead to separation of the cruciform tail and loss of control of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 11, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Textron Aviation Inc., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; telephone 316-517-6215; fax 316-517-5802; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Paul Kalowski, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-118W, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: 316-946-4186; fax: 316-946-4107; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
This proposed AD was prompted by Cessna's report of a manufacturing defect that affects the durability of the aft canted bulkhead metallic structure. The manufacturing defect directly affects the bond integrity of the vertical and horizontal stiffeners on the aft canted bulkhead metallic structure. This disbonding is caused by a loss of durability in the metal-to-metal bondline, which resulted from a reduced autoclave cure cycle dwell time and temperature during manufacturing. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in a structural failure that could lead to separation of the cruciform tail and loss of control of the airplane.
We reviewed the following Cessna service information.
• Cessna Service Letter SL680-53-05, Revision 2, dated September 30, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection for disbonding and paint cracking around the edges of the stiffeners on the aft canted bulkhead.
• Cessna Service Bulletin SB680-53-08, dated September 28, 2015. The service information describes procedures for modifying the airplane by installing additional stiffeners to the aft canted bulkhead.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.”
Although Cessna Service Letter SL680-53-05, Revision 2, dated September 30, 2015, specifies reporting the inspection results to Cessna, this proposed AD would not require those actions.
Although Cessna Service Letter SL680-53-05, Revision 2, dated September 30, 2015, specifies that operators may contact the manufacturer for disposition of certain conditions, this proposed AD would require operators to repair those conditions in accordance with a method approved by the FAA.
Although Cessna Service Letter SL680-53-05, Revision 2, dated September 30, 2015; and Service Bulletin SB680-53-08, dated September 28, 2015; use the term “debond” to describe full or partial separation of a stiffener from the aft canted bulkhead structure, this proposed AD instead uses the term “disbond.”
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 123 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by April 11, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Textron Aviation Inc. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Cessna Aircraft Company), Model 680 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Model 680 Sovereign airplanes (commonly known as Citation Sovereign airplanes), having serial numbers: 680-0001, -0002, -0006, -0025, -0030, -0031, -0032, -0046, -0051, -0057, -0064, -0066, -0067, -0082, -0104, -0108, -0112, -0118, -0120, -0125, -0132, -0139, -0140, -0141, -0144, -0147, -0148, -0149, -0153, -0157, -0160, -0162, -0163, -0164, -0166, -0167, -0169, -0170, -0171, -0173, -0174, -0175, -0176, -0177, -0178, -0179, -0180, -0182, -0183, -0185, -0186, -0192, -0193, -0196, -0200, -0202, -0204, -0205, -0206, -0208, -0211, -0216, -0220, -0221, -0222, -0227, -0229, -0230, -0231, -0234, -0235, -0236, -0238, -0241, -0242, -0243, -0245, -0246, -0249, -0252, -0253, -0255, -0256, -0257, -0258, -0260, -0262, -0268, -0270, -0271, -0280, -0282, -0283, -0284, -0285, -0289, -0291, -0292, -0296, -0297, -0300, -0301, -0302, -0303, -0304, -0306, -0307, -0313, -0315, -0317, -0318, -0322, -0323, -0324, -0327, -0328, -0329, -0333, -0334, -0336, -0337, -0339, -0340, -0342, -0344, -0346, -0347, -0348, and -0349.
(2) Model 680 Sovereign airplanes (commonly known as Citation Sovereign+ airplanes) having serial numbers: 680-0501, -0504, -0505, -0509, -0510, -0511, -0512, -0513, -0514, -0515, -0516, -0517, -0519, -0520, -0522, -0524, -0525, -0526, -0527, and -0531.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by Cessna's report of a manufacturing defect which affects the durability of the aft canted bulkhead metallic structure. The manufacturing defect directly affects the bond integrity of the vertical and horizontal stiffeners on the aft canted bulkhead metallic structure. We are issuing this AD to prevent disbonding of the horizontal and vertical stiffeners on the aft canted bulkhead. Loss of bond integrity could result in a structural failure that may lead to separation of the cruciform tail and loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before the accumulation of 7,000 total flight hours, or within 100 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform a general visual inspection for disbonding and paint cracking around the edges of the stiffeners on the aft canted bulkhead, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Cessna Service Letter SL680-53-05, Revision 2, dated September 30, 2015. Repeat the general visual inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 flight hours, until the modification required by paragraph (i) of this AD is accomplished.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any disbonding or cracked paint is found, before further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ACE-118W, FAA.
At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this
(1) For airplanes that have accumulated 7,000 or more total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD: Within 1,800 flight hours or 24 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 7,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD: Within 3,600 flight hours or 48 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) Cessna Service Letter SL680-53-05, dated December 22, 2014.
(2) Cessna Service Letter SL680-53-05, Revision 1, dated March 12, 2015.
Although Cessna Service Bulletin SB680-53-08, dated September 28, 2015; and Cessna Service Letter SL680-53-05 Revision 2, dated September 30, 2015; specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.
(1) The Manager, Wichita ACO, ACE-118W, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Paul Kalowski, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-118W, FAA, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: 316-946-4186; fax: 316-946-4107; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Textron Aviation Inc., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; telephone: 316-517-6215; fax: 316-517-5802; email:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the limited maintenance plan submitted on January 4, 2016, by the State of Washington for the Spokane area, which includes the cities of Spokane, Spokane Valley, Millwood and surrounding unincorporated areas in Spokane County, Washington. This plan addresses the second 10-year maintenance period for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM
Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0003 at
Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256,
Throughout this document wherever “we”, “us” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
The Spokane area was designated as nonattainment for PM
The EPA partially approved the PM
On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued guidance on streamlined maintenance plan provisions for certain moderate PM
To qualify for the limited maintenance plan option the State must demonstrate the area meets the criteria described below. First, the area should have attained the PM
The transportation conformity rule and the general conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. Under either conformity rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating a Federal action conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected emissions from the planned action are consistent with the emissions budget for the area.
While qualification for the limited maintenance plan option does not exempt an area from the need to affirm conformity, conformity may be demonstrated without submitting an emissions budget. Under the limited maintenance plan option, emissions budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that the qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a violation of the PM
Under the limited maintenance plan option, emissions budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a NAAQS violation would result. While areas with maintenance plans approved under the limited maintenance plan option are not subject to the budget test, the areas remain subject to the other transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the area or the State must document and ensure that:
• Transportation plans and projects provide for timely implementation of SIP transportation control measures (TCMs) in accordance with 40 CFR 93.113;
• Transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal constraint element as set forth in 40 CFR 93.108;
• The MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;
• Conformity of transportation plans is determined no less frequently than every four years, and conformity of plan amendments and transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;
• The latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;
• Projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and
• Project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments as specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
In approving the 2nd 10-year limited maintenance plan, the Spokane maintenance area will continue to be exempt from performing a regional emissions analysis, but must meet project-level conformity analyses as well as the transportation conformity criteria mentioned above.
As discussed above, the limited maintenance plan option memo outlines the requirements to be met for an area to qualify. First, the area should be attaining the PM
Second, the average design value for the past five years of monitoring data must be at or below the critical design value of 98 μg/m
Third, the area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test described in the limited maintenance plan option memo. The State submitted an analysis showing that growth in on-road mobile PM
As described above, the Spokane maintenance area meets the qualification criteria set forth in the limited maintenance plan option memo. To ensure these requirements continue to be met, the State has committed to evaluate monitoring data annually to ensure the area continues to qualify for the limited maintenance plan option. The State will report this information to the EPA in the annual monitoring network report.
Pursuant to the limited maintenance plan option memo, the State's submission should include an emissions inventory which can be used to demonstrate attainment of the relevant NAAQS. The inventory should represent emissions during the same five-year period associated with air quality data used to determine whether the area meets the applicability requirements of the limited maintenance plan option.
The limited maintenance plan submittal includes an emissions inventory based on the State's 2011 Triennial Emissions Inventory. This inventory is prepared as part of the 2011 National Emissions Inventory under the EPA's Air Emissions Reporting Rule (73 FR 76539, December 17, 2008). The information was supplemented with annual 2011 industrial emissions reported to SRCAA and Ecology. The 2011 base years represent the most recent emissions inventory data available and is consistent with the data used to determine applicability of the limited maintenance plan option (
The limited maintenance plan memo states, “[t]o verify the attainment status of the area over the maintenance period, the maintenance plan should contain a provision to assure continued operation of an appropriate, EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.” SRCAA currently operates a Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) PM
Clean Air Act section 175A states that a maintenance plan must include contingency provisions, as necessary, to ensure prompt correction of any violation of the relevant NAAQS which may occur after redesignation of the area to attainment. SRCAA Regulation 1 Section 6.15.G contains additional requirements for road paving should the EPA find that the Spokane area has violated the PM
The EPA is proposing to approve the limited maintenance plan submitted by the State of Washington, on January 4, 2016, for the Spokane PM
In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to revise our incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—Table 9 “Additional Regulations Approved for the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA) Jurisdiction” to reflect the regulations shown in the Proposed Action section. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. This SIP revision is not approved to apply in Indian reservations in the State or any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of public comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing an extension of the public comment period for the proposed rule titled “Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: Leak Detection Methodology Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems.” The public comment period for this proposal began on January 29, 2016. This document announces the extension of the deadline for public comment from February 29, 2016 to March 15, 2016.
The public comment period for the proposed rule published January 29, 2016 (81 FR 4987) is extended. Comments must be received on or before March 15, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0764 to the
Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9263; fax number: (202) 343-2342; email address:
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposal will also be available through the WWW. Following signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the EPA's GHGRP Web site at
To expedite review of your comments by Agency staff, you are encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the copy you submit to the official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. EPA, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, Mail Code 6207A, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 343-9263, email address:
In this action, the EPA is providing notice that it is extending the comment period on the proposed rule titled “Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: Leak Detection Methodology Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems,” which was published on January 29, 2016 (81 FR 4987). The previous deadline for submitting public comment on that rule was February 29, 2016. The EPA is extending that deadline to March 15, 2016. This extension will provide the general public additional time for participation and comments.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Greenhouse gases, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of public comment period.
The EPA is announcing an extension of the public comment period for the proposed rule titled “2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule”. The public comment period for this proposal began on January 29, 2016. This document announces the extension of the deadline for public comments from February 29, 2016 to March 30, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526, to the
Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9263; fax number: (202) 343-2342; email address:
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's proposal will also be available through the WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Web site at
To expedite review of your comments by Agency staff, you are encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in adition to the copy you submit to the official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. EPA, Office of Atmospheric Program, Climate Change Division, Mail Code 6207A, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 343-9263, email address:
In this action, the EPA is providing notice that it is extending the comment period on the proposed rule titled “2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule”, which was published on January 15, 2016 (81 FR 2536). The previous deadline for submitting public comment on that rule was February 29, 2016. The EPA is extending that deadline to March 30, 2016. This extension will provide the general public additional time for participation and comments.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Greenhouse gases, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the comment period on our September 1, 2015, proposed rule to remove the plant
To allow us adequate time to consider your comments on the proposed rule, we must receive your comments on or before March 28, 2016.
•
•
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Virgil Lee Andrews, Jr., Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, 330 West Broadway, Suite 265, Frankfort, KY 40601; telephone (502) 695-0468. Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 for TTY assistance 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
On September 1, 2015, we published a proposed rule (80 FR 52717) to remove the plant
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule or the associated draft post-delisting monitoring plan by one of the methods listed in
If you submit information via
If you mail or hand-deliver a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review, but we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that the electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy submissions on
In accordance with our policy published in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period and rescheduled public open house and hearing.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are extending the comment period for our January 8, 2016, proposed rule to amend our regulations for National Wildlife Refuges (refuges) in Alaska. This action ensures that the public has an additional opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. We are also rescheduling the Kodiak open house and public hearing to March 2, 2016.
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R7-NWRS-2014-0005; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
(3) At open houses or public hearings: Written comments will be accepted by Service personnel at any of the nine scheduled open houses or public hearings. Public testimony will be recorded and submitted for the record at only the public hearings via a court reporter.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Stephanie Brady, Chief of Conservation Planning and Policy, National Wildlife Refuge System, Alaska Regional Office, 1011 E. Tudor Rd., Mail Stop 211, Anchorage, AK 99503; telephone (907) 306-7448.
On January 8, 2016, we published a proposed rule (81 FR 887) to clarify how our existing mandates for the conservation of natural and biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health on refuges in Alaska relate to predator control; to
We received multiple requests from several entities, including the Alaska Congressional Delegation and the Governor of Alaska, to extend the comment period on the proposed rule. In order to provide all interested parties an additional opportunity to review and comment on our proposed rule, we are extending the comment period on the proposed rule for an additional 30 days, until April 7, 2016.
If you previously submitted comments or information on the proposed rule, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully consider them in our final rulemaking. Our final determination concerning the proposed rulemaking will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive.
You may submit your comments and any associated materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
If you submit information via
The authority for this action is 5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 460k
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to implement measures described in Amendment 7 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) (Reef Fish FMP), Amendment 6 to the FMP for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of Puerto Rico and the USVI (Spiny Lobster FMP), Amendment 5 to the FMP for Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates of Puerto Rico and the USVI (Coral FMP), and Amendment 4 to the FMP for the Queen Conch Resources of Puerto Rico and the USVI (Queen Conch FMP), as prepared by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council). In combination, these amendments represent the Application of Accountability Measures (AM) Amendment (AM Application Amendment). If implemented, the AM Application Amendment would resolve an existing inconsistency between language in the FMPs and the regulations implementing the application of AMs in the U.S. Caribbean exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The purpose of the AM Application Amendment is to ensure the authorizing FMPs are consistent with the regulations governing AMs in the Caribbean EEZ. Additionally, this proposed rule would clarify the AM closure provisions, the application of the spiny lobster ACL in the Puerto Rico management area of the Caribbean EEZ, and the minimum size limit for queen conch in the Caribbean EEZ.
Written comments must be received on or before March 28, 2016.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0124” by any of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of the AM Application Amendment, which includes an environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, and a regulatory impact review may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
María del Mar López, telephone: 727-824-5305; email:
In the Caribbean EEZ, the reef fish, spiny lobster, queen conch, and corals and reef associated plants and invertebrates fisheries are managed under their respective FMPs. The FMPs were prepared by the Council and are implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
The final rule implementing Amendment 2 to the Queen Conch FMP and Amendment 5 to the Reef Fish FMP (2010 Caribbean Annual Catch Limit (ACL) Amendment) established ACLs and AMs for species/species groups that were at the time experiencing overfishing (
The AM Application Amendment would correct this inconsistency, between the authorizing FMPs and the regulatory language at §§ 622.12(a) and 622.491(b), by revising the applicable text within the four FMPs to be consistent with the language in the regulations. Specifically, the phrase in the four authorizing FMPs that states “The needed changes will remain in effect until modified by the Council,” which describes the duration of AMs, would be removed from the four FMPs. The result of this proposed change would be that under both the authorizing FMPs and AM-based closure regulatory language, any AM-based closure would only apply for the fishing year in which it was implemented. This approach is consistent with the intent of the Council and the regulations used by NMFS to apply AMs in the Caribbean EEZ. As this proposed change would only revise the language in the respective FMPs, no changes to the codified text would result from the AM Application Amendment.
This proposed rule would also revise items in the codified text that are not part of the AM Application Amendment. Specifically, NMFS proposes to clarify the closure provisions when an ACL has been exceeded and an AM is implemented, based on the Council's intent as expressed in the 2010 and 2011 Caribbean ACL Amendments (76 FR 82404, December 30, 2011 and 76 FR 82414, December 30, 2011). NMFS also proposes to clarify the application of the spiny lobster ACL for the Puerto Rico management area of the EEZ to be consistent with the Council's intent expressed in the 2011 ACL Caribbean Amendment and to clarify minimum size requirements for queen conch.
The 2010 and 2011 Caribbean ACL Amendments established AMs and ACLs and allocated those ACLs among three Caribbean island management areas,
The ACLs for species/species groups in the St. Croix and St. Thomas/St. John management areas are not allocated between sectors, and if AMs are triggered they are applied to both the commercial and recreational sector.
If an AM is triggered by an ACL being exceeded based on the 3-year landings average, and NMFS determines that the exceedance was not due to enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts, NMFS files a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to reduce the length of the following fishing season for the applicable species or species groups that year by the amount necessary, to ensure landings do not again exceed the applicable ACL. The current regulations do not specifically state what restrictions on fishing occur during such a closure.
NMFS proposes to add § 622.12(b) to the regulatory text to specify that, if AMs are triggered as a result of an ACL overage and NMFS reduces the length of the fishing season for a species or species group, certain closure provisions would apply to species with Caribbean-wide ACLs, Caribbean reef fish species, and Caribbean spiny lobster.
For Caribbean reef fish species in the Puerto Rico management area, § 622.12(b)(1)(i) through (iii) would be added to specify what restrictions apply during a commercial closure, recreational closure, or a closure of both sectors. In the event that the commercial fishing season is reduced for a species or species group due to a Puerto Rico commercial ACL overage, all harvest or possession of the indicated species or species group in or from the Puerto Rico management area would be limited to the bag and possession limits specified in § 622.437, and the sale or purchase of the indicated species or species group in or from the Puerto Rico management area would be prohibited during the closure. If the recreational fishing season is reduced for a species or species group due to a Puerto Rico recreational ACL overage, the bag and possession limits for the indicated species or species group would be zero during the closure. If both the commercial and recreational sectors for a species or species group in the Puerto Rico management area are closed, such species or species groups may not be harvested, possessed, purchased, or sold and the bag and possession limits for such species or species groups would be zero.
For Caribbean reef fish species and spiny lobster in the St. Croix and St. Thomas/St. John island management
For Caribbean spiny lobster in the Puerto Rico management area, § 622.12(b)(1)(iv) would be added to clarify that, if the AM is triggered due to a spiny lobster ACL overage, the commercial and recreational fishing seasons are reduced. During such a closure, spiny lobster in or from the Puerto Rico management area may not be harvested, possessed, purchased, or sold, and the bag and possession limits for spiny lobster in or from the Puerto Rico management area would be zero.
Additionally, through this proposed rule, NMFS would revise § 622.492(a) to clarify the minimum size limit for a Caribbean queen conch. Currently, § 622.492(a) states that the minimum size limit is “9 inches (22.9 cm) in length, that is, from the tip of the spire to the distal end of the shell, and
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the U.S. Caribbean FMPs, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows:
The purpose of this proposed rule is to revise the language within U.S. Caribbean FMPs to make it consistent with current regulations concerning the application of AMs. Because it would produce no regulatory changes, the action would have no economic impact on the estimated 1,037 to 1,185 small businesses in the finfish (NAICS code 114111) and shellfish (NAICS code 114112) fishing industries of the U.S. Caribbean.
The rule would also include regulatory text to clarify the closure provisions for AMs, how the spiny lobster ACL is applied in the Puerto Rico management area, and the minimum size requirements for queen conch, all unrelated to the amendment. Because those clarifications would not affect current fishing practices, or change the manner in which fisheries in the Caribbean EEZ are regulated, they would not have an economic impact on the above-mentioned small businesses.
Because this proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant direct adverse economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Accountability measures, Caribbean, Fisheries, Fishing, Queen conch.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii)
(b)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(2)
(a) The minimum size limit for Caribbean queen conch is either 9 inches (22.9 cm) in length, that is, from the tip of the spire to the distal end of the shell, or
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 Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are sponsoring a public meeting on April 13, 2016. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States (U.S.) positions to be discussed at the 43rd Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling in Foods (CCFL) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), taking place in Ottawa, Canada May 9-13, 2016. The Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety and the FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 43rd Session of the CCFL and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 13, 2016, from 1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m.
The public meeting will take place at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, Center for Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, Room 1A-003, College Park, MD 20740. Documents related to the 43rd Session of the CCFL will be accessible via the Internet at
Felicia Billingslea, U.S. Delegate to the 43rd Session of the CCFL, invites U.S. parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
If you wish to participate in the public meeting for the 43rd Session of the CCFL by conference call. Please use the call-in-number below:
Call-in-Number: 1-888-844-9904.
The participant code will be posted on the Web page below:
Attendees may register electronically to attend the public meeting by emailing
Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. 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 fair practices in the food trade.
The CCFL is responsible for:
(a) Drafting provisions on labeling applicable to all foods;
(b) Considering, amending if necessary, and endorsing draft specific provisions on labeling prepared by the Codex Committee's drafting standards, codes of practice, and guidelines;
(c) Studying specific labeling problems assigned to it by the Commission; and
(d) Studying problems associated with the advertisement of food with particular reference to claims and misleading descriptions.
The Committee is hosted by Canada.
The following items on the Agenda for the 43rd Session of the CCFL will be discussed during the public meeting:
• Matters referred to the Committee by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and by other Codex Subsidiary Bodies;
• Consideration of labelling provisions in draft Codex standards;
• Organic aquaculture (Proposed Draft Revision of the Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling, and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods);
• Date Marking (Proposed Draft Revision of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods);
• Labelling of non-retail containers (Discussion paper);
• Issues related to Internet sales of food (Discussion Paper);
• Proposal to revise the General Guidelines for the Use of the Term “Halal”; and
• Other Business and Future Work.
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat before the meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see
At the April 13, 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 Felicia Billingslea for the 43rd Session of the CCFL (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:
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).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain stilbenic optical brightening agents (OBAs) from Taiwan. The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015. The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Teh Fong Ming International Co., Ltd. (TFM). We preliminarily find that TFM has sold subject merchandise at less than normal value. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Catherine Cartsos or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1757, and (202) 482-1690, respectively.
The merchandise subject to the
In accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we relied on facts available with an adverse inference with respect to TFM, the sole company in this review. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a weighted-average dumping margin of 6.19 percent exists for TFM for the period May 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically
Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. For the final results, if we continue to rely on adverse facts available to establish TFM's weighted average dumping margin, we will instruct CBP to apply an
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of OBAs from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for TFM will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the manufacturer of the merchandise for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 6.19 percent.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
Recommendation
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
For the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Italy, the Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that sales of subject merchandise by Filmag Italia Spa (Filmag) were made at less than normal value during the period of review.
Edythe Artman or Brian Davis, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3931 or (202) 482-7924, respectively.
For purposes of the order, the product covered is certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings. Stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings are under 14 inches in outside diameter (based on nominal pipe size), whether finished or unfinished. The product encompasses all grades of stainless steel and “commodity” and “specialty” fittings. Specifically excluded from the definition are threaded, grooved, and bolted fittings, and fittings made from any material other than stainless steel.
The butt-weld fittings subject to the order is currently classifiable under subheading 7307.23.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, titled “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Italy; 2014-2015” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), which is issued concurrent with and hereby adopted by this notice.
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). Access to ACCESS is available to registered users at
As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the preliminary results of this review is now February 22, 2016.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price has been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value has been calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
We preliminarily determine that, for the period February 1, 2014, through January 31, 2015, the following dumping margin exists:
The Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results of review within five days after the date of publication of this notice.
Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues parties intend to discuss. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a date and time to be determined.
The Department intends to publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues addressed in any case or rebuttal brief, no later than 120 days after publication of these preliminary results, unless extended.
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Filmag will be that established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or in the investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent review period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the all-others rate of 26.59 percent, the rate established in the investigation of this proceeding.
This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's (CFMC) Outreach and Education Advisory Panel (OEAP) will meet.
The meeting will be held on April 13, 2016, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at CFMC Office, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918.
Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918, telephone: (787) 766-5926.
The OEAP will meet to discuss the items contained in the following agenda:
The OEAP meeting will convene on April 13, 2016, from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. The meeting is open to the public, and will be conducted in English. Fishers and other interested persons are invited to attend and participate with oral or written statements regarding agenda issues.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and/other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918, telephone (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of Caribbean Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), District Advisory Panels (DAPs) and one day Council Meeting.
The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee, the District Advisory Panels, and the Caribbean Council will hold a three-day meeting.
The meetings will be held on March 15-17, 2016. See
The meetings will be held at the Verdanza Hotel, Tartak St. San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1903, telephone (787) 766-5926.
The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's SSC, the District Advisory Panels, and the Caribbean Council will hold a three-day meeting to discuss the items contained in the following agenda:
The District Advisory Panels will meet individually on March 17, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., to discuss their reaction to the information received at the SSC Meeting, and to provide their recommendations to the CFMC. The Caribbean Fishery Management Council will meet on March 17, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., to discuss the information received from the SSC meeting, the ABC Control Rule, and to review an exempted permit application.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-1903, telephone (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of Advisory Committee meeting.
The Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Section to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) announces its annual spring meeting to be held March 10-11, 2016.
The open sessions of the Committee meeting will be held on March 10, 2016, 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.; and March 11, 2016, 9 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. Closed sessions will be held on March 10, 2016, 3:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., and on March 11, 2016, 8 a.m. to 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton DoubleTree Hotel, 8727 Colesville Rd., Silver Spring, MD 20910. The phone number is (301) 589-5200.
Rachel O'Malley at (301) 427-8373.
The Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to ICCAT will meet in open session to receive and discuss information on the 2015 ICCAT meeting results and U.S. implementation of ICCAT decisions; NMFS research and monitoring activities; global and domestic initiatives related to ICCAT; the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act-required consultation on any identification of countries that are diminishing the effectiveness of ICCAT; the results of the meetings of the Committee's Species Working Groups; and other matters relating to the international management of ICCAT species. The public will have access to the open sessions of the meeting, but there will be no opportunity for public comment. The agenda is available from the Committee's Executive Secretary upon request (see
The Committee will meet in its Species Working Groups for part of the afternoon of March 10, 2016, and for one hour on the morning of March 11, 2016. These sessions are not open to the public, but the results of the species working group discussions will be reported to the full Advisory Committee during the Committee's open session on March 11, 2016.
The meeting location is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Rachel O'Malley at (301) 427-8373 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Herring Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 10 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the DoubleTree by Hilton, 50 Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA 01950; phone: (978) 777-2500; fax: (978) 750-7911.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Advisory Panel plans to review/discuss herring coverage target alternatives in the IFM Amendment. The panel will also review/discuss economic and biological impacts of herring coverage target alternatives. They will also develop recommendations to the Herring Committee for preliminary preferred alternatives for the herring fishery in the IFM Amendment. The panel will receive a brief update on Amendment 8 to the Herring FMP. Other business will be discussed as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Addition to and Deletions from the Procurement List.
This action adds a product to the Procurement List that will be furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products and a service from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
Patricia Briscoe, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 12/18/2015 (80 FR 79031-79032), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agency to provide the product and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the product listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will furnish the product to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product is added to the Procurement List:
On 1/15/2016 (81 FR 2198-2199) and 2/5/2016 (81 FR 6241), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and service deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and service are deleted from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products previously furnished by such agencies.
Comments Must Be Received on or Before: 3/27/2016.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
For Further Information or To Submit Comments Contact: Patricia Briscoe, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following products are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice; request for nominations.
The Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery is an independent Federal advisory committee chartered to provide the Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary of the Army, independent advice and recommendations on Arlington National Cemetery, including, but not limited to cemetery administration, the erection of memorials at the cemetery, and master planning for the cemetery. The Secretary of the Army may act on the Committee's advice and recommendations. The Committee is comprised of no more than nine (9) members. Subject to the approval of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army appoints no more than seven (7) of these members. The purpose of this notice is to solicit nominations from a wide range of highly qualified persons to be considered for appointment to the Committee. Nominees may be appointed as members of the Committee and its sub-committees for terms of service ranging from one to four years. This notice solicits nominations to fill Committee membership vacancies that may occur through July 20, 2016. Nominees must be preeminent authorities in their respective fields of interest or expertise.
All nominations must be received at (see
Interested persons may submit a resume for consideration by the Department of the Army to the Committee's Designated Federal Officer at the following address: Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery, ATTN: Designated Federal Officer (DFO) (Ms. Yates), Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, VA 22211.
Ms. Renea C. Yates, Designated Federal Officer, by email at
The Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery was established pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 4723. The selection, service and appointment of members of the Committee are covered by the Committee Charter, available on the Arlington National Cemetery Web site
a. Selection. The Committee Charter provides that the Committee shall be comprised of no more than nine members, all of whom are preeminent authorities in their respective fields of interest or expertise. Of these, no more than seven members are nominated by the Secretary of the Army.
By direction of the Secretary of the Army, all resumes submitted in response to this notice will be presented to and reviewed by a panel of three senior Army leaders. Potential nominees shall be prioritized after review and consideration of their resumes for: Demonstrated technical/professional expertise; preeminence in a field(s) of interest or expertise; potential contribution to membership balance in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed; potential organizational and financial conflicts of interest; commitment to our Nation's veterans and their families; and published points of view relevant to the objectives of the Committee. The panel will provide the DFO with a prioritized list of potential nominees for consideration by the Executive Director, Army National Military Cemeteries, in making an initial recommendation to the Secretary of the Army. The Executive Director, Army National Military Cemeteries; the Secretary of the Army; and the Secretary of Defense are not limited or bound by the recommendations of the Army senior leader panel. Sources in addition to this
b. Service. The Secretary of Defense may approve the appointment of a Committee member for a one-to-four year term of service; however, no member, unless authorized by the Secretary of Defense, may serve on the Committee or authorized subcommittee for more than two consecutive terms of service. The Secretary of the Army shall designate the Committee Chair from the total Advisory Committee membership. The Committee meets at the call of the DFO, in consultation with the Committee Chair. It is estimated that the Committee meets four times per year.
c. Appointment. The operations of the Committee and the appointment of members are subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended) and departmental implementing regulations, including Department of Defense Instruction 5105.04, Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committee Management Program, available at
Additional information about the Committee is available on the Internet at:
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
On behalf of the U.S. Government, DoD is contemplating negotiating and concluding a Reciprocal Defense Procurement (RDP) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Ministry of Defense of Estonia. DoD is requesting industry feedback regarding its experience in public defense procurements conducted by or on behalf of the Estonian Ministry of Defense or Armed Forces.
Submit written comments to the address shown below on or before March 28, 2016.
Submit comments to Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Attn: Lt. Col. Judy Anderson, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 5E621, Washington, DC 20301-3060; or by email to
Lt. Col. Judy Anderson, Senior Analyst, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (OUSD(AT&L)), Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Contract Policy and International Contracting; Room 5E621, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060; telephone (703) 695-7197.
DoD has concluded Reciprocal Defense Procurement (RDP) Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with 23 “qualifying countries” at the level of the Secretary of Defense and his counterpart. The purpose of an RDP MOU is to promote rationalization, standardization, and interoperability of conventional defense equipment with allies and other friendly governments. These MOUs provide a framework for ongoing communication regarding market access and procurement matters that enhance effective defense cooperation.
RDP MOUs generally include language by which the Parties agree that their defense procurements will be conducted in accordance with certain implementing procedures. These procedures relate to—
• Publication of notices of proposed purchases;
• The content and availability of solicitations for proposed purchases;
• Notification to each unsuccessful offeror;
• Feedback, upon request, to unsuccessful offerors concerning the reasons they were not allowed to participate in a procurement or were not awarded a contract; and
• Provision for the hearing and review of complaints arising in connection with any phase of the procurement process to ensure that, to the extent possible, complaints are equitably and expeditiously resolved.
Based on the MOU, each country affords the other country certain benefits on a reciprocal basis consistent with national laws and regulations. The benefits that the United States accords to the products of qualifying countries include—
• Offers of qualifying country end products are evaluated without applying the price differentials otherwise required by the Buy American statute and the Balance of Payments Program;
• The chemical warfare protection clothing restrictions in 10 U.S.C. 2533a, and the specialty metals restriction in 10 U.S.C. 2533b(a)(1) do not apply to products manufactured in a qualifying country; and
• Customs, taxes, and duties are waived for qualifying country end products and components of defense procurements.
If DoD (for the United States Government) concludes an RDP MOU with the Ministry of Defense of Estonia, then Estonia would be listed as one of the “qualifying countries” in the definition of “qualifying country” at DFARS 225.003, and offers of products of Estonia or that contain components from Estonia would be afforded the benefits available to all qualifying countries. This also means that U.S. products would be exempt from any analogous “Buy Estonia” and “Buy European Union” laws or policies applicable to procurements by the Estonia Ministry of Defense or Armed Forces.
While DoD is evaluating Estonia's laws and regulations in this area, DoD would benefit from U.S. industry's experience in participating in Estonia's public defense procurements. DoD is, therefore, asking U.S. firms that have participated or attempted to participate in procurements by or on behalf of Estonia's Ministry of Defense or Armed Forces to let us know if the procurements were conducted with transparency, integrity, fairness, and due process in accordance with published procedures, and if not, the nature of the problems encountered.
DoD is also interested in comments relating to the degree of reciprocity that exists between the United States and Estonia when it comes to the openness of defense procurements to offers of products from the other country.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of open Federal advisory committee meeting.
The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Inland Waterways Users Board (Board). This meeting is open to the public. For additional information about the Board, please visit the committee's Web site at
The Army Corps of Engineers, Inland Waterways Users Board will meet from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on April 1, 2016. Public registration will begin at 8:15 a.m.
The Board meeting will be conducted at the Hotel Monaco—Pittsburgh, 620 William Penn Place, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, at 412-471-1170, reservations at 855-338-3837,
Mr. Mark R. Pointon, the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the committee, in writing at the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CEIWR-GM, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868; by telephone at 703-428-6438; and by email at
The committee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
Training and Information for Parents of Children with Disabilities—Parent Training and Information Centers Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2016.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.328M.
This priority is:
The purpose of this priority is to fund one regional Pacific Parent Training and Information Center (PTI) designed to meet the information and training needs of parents of infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities, ages birth through 26 (collectively, “children with disabilities”), and the information and training needs of youth with disabilities, living in American Samoa, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Republic of Palau. The 2015 notice inviting applications for new awards for CFDA 84.328M included the Pacific region. However, we received no applications for the Pacific region PTI. The fiscal year 2015 funding was used to supplement the PTI in Hawaii to provide services in the Pacific and help build the organizational capacity of eligible Pacific entities to respond to this notice.
More than 35 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by strengthening the ability of parents to participate fully in the education of their children at school and at home (see section 601(c)(5)(B) of IDEA). PTIs help parents set high expectations for their children with disabilities and provide parents with the information and training they need to help their children meet those expectations. The following Web site provides further information on the work of currently funded PTIs:
Consistent with section 671(b) of IDEA, PTIs help families: (a) Navigate systems that provide early intervention, special education, general education, postsecondary options, and related services; (b) understand the nature of their children's disabilities; (c) learn about their rights and responsibilities under IDEA; (d) expand their knowledge of evidence-based (as defined in this notice) education practices to help their children succeed; (e) strengthen their collaboration with professionals; (f) locate resources available for themselves and their children, which connects them to their local communities; and (g) advocate for improved student achievement, increased graduation rates, and improved postsecondary outcomes for all children through participation in school reform activities. In addition, PTIs have helped youth with disabilities have high expectations for themselves, understand their rights and responsibilities, and learn self-advocacy skills. PTIs have also partnered with Federal, State, and local agencies, providing expertise on how to better support families and youth with disabilities as they access IDEA services.
The PTI to be funded through this priority will build on the program's history by helping youth become effective self-advocates and by providing parents with information, individual assistance, and training to enable them to: (a) Ensure that their children are included in general education classrooms and extracurricular activities with their peers; (b) help their children meet developmental and academic goals; (c) help their children meet challenging expectations established for all children, including college- and career-ready academic standards; and (d) prepare their children to achieve positive postsecondary outcomes that lead to lives that are as productive and independent as possible.
The Department intends to fund one grant to establish and operate one PTI to serve the Pacific region. Based on the quality of applications received, the Department intends to fund this PTI to serve the following outlying areas in the Pacific: American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the freely associated States as authorized in section 610 of IDEA: The Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. For purposes of this notice, the covered jurisdictions will be referred to as “States.”
At a minimum, the PTI must: (a) Increase parents'
To be considered for funding under this priority, an applicant must meet the application, programmatic, and administrative requirements of this priority. Applicants must—
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will, within the area served by the center—
(1) Address the needs of parents of children with disabilities for high-quality services that increase parents' capacity to help their children with disabilities improve their early learning, school-aged, and postsecondary outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must—
(i) Present appropriate information on the needs of parents, including underserved parents, low-income parents, parents with limited English proficiency, parents of incarcerated youth with disabilities, and parents with disabilities;
(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of best practices in providing training and information to a variety of audiences, including underserved parents, low-income parents, parents with limited English proficiency, parents of incarcerated youth with disabilities, and parents with disabilities;
(iii) Demonstrate knowledge of best practices in outreach and family-centered services;
(iv) Demonstrate knowledge of current evidence-based education practices and policy initiatives to improve outcomes in early intervention and early childhood, general and special education, transition services, and postsecondary options; and
(v) Demonstrate knowledge of how to identify and work with appropriate partners in the Pacific, including local providers and lead agencies providing Part C services under IDEA; State and local educational agencies; State child welfare agencies; disability-specific systems and entities serving families, such as the State's protection and advocacy system; and other nonprofits serving families in order to improve outcomes; and
(2) Address the needs of youth with disabilities for high-quality services that increase their capacity to be effective self-advocates. To meet this requirement, the applicant must—
(i) Present appropriate information on the needs of youth with disabilities, including underserved youth, incarcerated youth, youth in foster care, and youth with limited English proficiency;
(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of best practices in providing training and information to youth with disabilities;
(iii) Demonstrate knowledge of current evidence-based education practices and policy initiatives in self-advocacy; and
(iv) Demonstrate knowledge of how to work with appropriate partners serving youth with disabilities, including State and local agencies, other nonprofits, and Independent Living Centers that are providing assistance such as postsecondary education options, employment training, and supports.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application, under “Quality of the Project Services,” how the proposed project will—
(1) Use a project logic model (see paragraph (f)(1) of this priority) to guide the development of project plans and activities within the area served by the center;
(2) Develop and implement an outreach plan to inform parents of children with disabilities of how they can benefit from the services provided by the PTI, including—
(i) Parents of children who may be inappropriately identified as having a disability;
(ii) Underserved parents, including parents who are underserved based on race or ethnicity;
(iii) Parents with limited English proficiency;
(iv) Low-income parents; and
(v) Parents with disabilities;
(3) Develop and implement an outreach plan to inform youth with disabilities of how they can benefit from the services provided by the PTI;
(4) Provide high-quality services that increase parents' capacity to help their children with disabilities improve their early learning, school-aged, and postsecondary outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must include information as to how the services will—
(i) Increase parents' knowledge of—
(A) The nature of their children's disabilities, including their children's strengths and academic, behavioral, and developmental challenges;
(B) The importance of having high expectations for their children and how to help them meet those expectations;
(C) The local, State, and Federal resources available to assist them and their children and local resources that strengthen their connection to their communities;
(D) IDEA, Federal IDEA regulations, and State implementation of IDEA, including—
(
(
(
(E) Other relevant educational and health care legislation, including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA); section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (section 504); and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA);
(F) Transition services at all levels, including: Part C early intervention to Part B preschool, preschool to elementary school, elementary school to secondary school, secondary school to postsecondary education and workforce options, and re-entry of incarcerated youth to school and the community;
(G) How their children can have access to the general education curriculum, including access to college- and career-ready academic standards and assessments, extracurricular and enrichment opportunities available to all children, and other initiatives to make students college- and career-ready;
(H) How their children can have access to inclusive early learning programs, inclusive general education classrooms and settings, and extracurricular and enrichment opportunities available to all children;
(I) Evidence-based early intervention and education practices that improve early learning, school-aged, and postsecondary outcomes;
(J) School reform efforts to improve student achievement and increase graduation rates; and
(K) The use of data to inform instruction and advance school reform efforts;
(ii) Increase parents' capacity to—
(A) Effectively support their children with disabilities and participate in their children's education;
(B) Communicate effectively and work collaboratively in partnership with early intervention service providers, school-based personnel, related services personnel, and administrators;
(C) Resolve disputes effectively; and
(D) Participate in school reform activities to improve outcomes for children;
(5) Provide high-quality services that increase youth with disabilities' capacity to be effective self-advocates. To meet this requirement, the applicant must include information as to how the services will—
(i) Increase the knowledge of youth with disabilities about—
(A) The nature of their disabilities, including their strengths and of their academic, behavioral, and developmental challenges;
(B) The importance of having high expectations for themselves and how to meet those expectations;
(C) The resources available to support their success in secondary and postsecondary education and employment and full participation in their communities;
(D) IDEA, section 504, ADA, and other legislation and policies that affect people with disabilities;
(E) Their rights and responsibilities while receiving services under IDEA and after transitioning to post-school programs, services, and employment;
(F) How they can participate on IEP Teams; and
(G) Supported decisionmaking necessary to transition to adult life; and
(ii) Increase the capacity of youth with disabilities to advocate for themselves, including communicating effectively and working in partnership with providers;
(6) Use various methods to deliver services, including in-person and remotely through the use of technology;
(7) Use best practices to provide training and information to adult learners and youth;
(8) Establish cooperative partnerships with any Community Parent Resource Centers under section 672 of IDEA; and
(9) Network with local, State, and national organizations and agencies, such as the Part C State Interagency Coordination Council, the Part B State Advisory Panel, and protection and advocacy agencies that serve parents and families of children with disabilities, to better support families and children with disabilities to effectively and efficiently access IDEA services.
(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application, under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” how—
(1) The applicant will evaluate how well the goals or objectives of the proposed project, as described in its logic model, have been met by undertaking a formative evaluation and a summative evaluation, including a description of how the applicant will measure the outcomes proposed in the logic model (see paragraph (f)(1) of this priority). The description must include—
(i) Proposed evaluation methodologies, including proposed instruments, data collection methods, and analyses; and
(ii) Proposed criteria for determining if the project has reached and served youth with disabilities and parents, including underserved parents of children with disabilities; and
(2) The proposed project will use the evaluation results to examine its implementation and its progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project Resources,” how—
(1) The proposed personnel, consultants, and contractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the intended outcomes identified in the project logic model (see paragraph (f)(1) of this priority);
(2) The applicant will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have historically been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, linguistic diversity, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate; and
(3) The applicant and key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how—
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the intended outcomes identified in the project logic model (see paragraph (f)(1) of this priority) will be achieved on time and within budget;
(2) The time of key personnel, consultants, and contractors will be sufficiently allocated to the project;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the services provided are of high quality;
(4) The board of directors will be used to provide appropriate oversight to the project;
(5) The proposed project benefits from a diversity of perspectives, including those of parents, providers, and administrators in the area to be served by the center;
(6) The proposed project will ensure that the Annual Performance Reports submitted to the Department will—
(i) Be accurate and timely;
(ii) Include information on the projects' outputs and outcomes; and
(iii) Include, at a minimum, the number and demographics of parents and youth to whom the PTI provided information and training, the parents' and youth's unique needs, and the levels of service provided to them; and
(7) The project management and staff will—
(i) Make use of the technical assistance (TA) and products provided by the Center on Parent Information and Resources, Regional Parent Technical Assistance Centers (PTACs), Native American PTAC, Military PTAC, and other TA centers funded by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), as appropriate, in order to serve parents of children with disabilities and youth with disabilities as effectively as possible;
(ii) Participate in developing individualized TA plans with the Regional PTAC as appropriate; and
(iii) Facilitate one site visit from the Regional PTAC during the grant cycle.
(f) In the narrative or appendices as directed, the applicant must—
(1) Include, in Appendix A, a logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project. A logic model
(2) Include, in Appendix A, person-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;
(3) Include, in the budget, attendance by the project director at one OSEP meeting in Washington DC annually, to be determined by OSEP; and
Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the grantee's project director and other authorized representatives.
(4) Include a statement in the narrative about how the project will maintain a Web site that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility and that includes, at a minimum, a current calendar of upcoming events, free informational publications for families, and links to Webinars or other online multimedia resources.
For the purposes of this priority:
20 U.S.C. 1471 and 1481.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
Contingent on the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2017 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
Section 671(a)(2) of IDEA defines a “parent organization” as a private nonprofit organization (other than an institution of higher education) that—
(a) Has a board of directors—
(1) The majority of whom are parents of children with disabilities ages birth through 26;
(2) That includes—
(i) Individuals working in the fields of special education, related services, and early intervention; and
(ii) Individuals with disabilities; and
(3) The parent and professional members of which are broadly representative of the population to be served, including low-income parents and parents of limited English proficient children; and
(b) Has as its mission serving families of children with disabilities who are ages birth through 26, and have the full range of disabilities described in section 602(3) of IDEA.
2.
3.
(b) The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application.
4.
(b) Each applicant for, and recipient of, funding under this program must involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).
1.
To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address:
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.328M.
To obtain a copy from the program office, contact: Carmen Sanchez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5175, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6595. If you use a TDD or TTY, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit and double-spacing requirements do not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the page limit and double-spacing requirements do apply to all of Part III, the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit in the application narrative section.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site:
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the
Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through, Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
Applications for grants under the Parent Training and Information Centers competition, CFDA number 84.328M, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the Parent Training and Information Centers competition at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the
• Applications received by
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF (
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from
Once your application is successfully validated by
These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department's application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to upload attachments in a read-only, non-modifiable PDF; failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department's requirements.
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Carmen Sanchez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5175, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. FAX: (202) 245-7590.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.328M), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.328M), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
4.
Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590).
5.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Carmen Sanchez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5175, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6595.
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions (ANNH) Program.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2016.
This priority is:
(a) Projects that are designed to improve:
(i) Academic outcomes;
(ii) Learning environments; or
(iii) Both,
(b) For one or more of the following groups of students:
(i) High-need students.
(ii) Students with disabilities.
(iii) English learners.
(iv) Disconnected youth or migrant youth.
(v) Low-skilled adults.
In assessing the relevance of the research cited to the proposed project, the Secretary will consider, among other factors, the portion of the requested funds that will be dedicated to the evidence-based strategies or activities.
These priorities are:
This priority is:
Projects that support activities that strengthen Native language preservation and revitalization.
(i) There is at least one study that is a—
(A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;
(B) Quasi-experimental design study that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or
(C) Randomized controlled trial that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.
(ii) The study referenced in paragraph (i) of this definition found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger) favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.
(i) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse), and includes a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice.
(ii) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse), includes a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice, and includes a large sample and a multi-site sample.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2017 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $500,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
At the time of submission of their applications, applicants must certify their total undergraduate headcount enrollment and that either 20 percent of the IHE's enrollment is Alaska Native or 10 percent is Native Hawaiian. An assurance form, which is included in the application materials for this competition, must be signed by an official for the applicant and submitted.
To qualify as an eligible institution under the ANNH Program, an institution must also be—
(i) Accredited or preaccredited by a nationally recognized accrediting
(ii) Legally authorized by the State in which it is located to be a junior college or to provide an educational program for which it awards a bachelor's degree; and
(iii) Designated as an “eligible institution” by demonstrating that it: (1) Has an enrollment of needy students as described in 34 CFR 607.3; and (2) has low average educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate student, as described in 34 CFR 607.4.
The notice announcing the FY 2016 process for designation of eligible institutions, and inviting applications for waiver of eligibility requirements, was published in the
2. a.
b.
1.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You can obtain an application via the Internet using the following address:
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this program.
• The selection criteria to no more than 50 pages.
• The absolute priority to no more than three pages.
• A competitive preference priority, to no more than three pages, if you address one.
• The invitational priority to no more than two pages, if you address it.
For the purpose of determining compliance with the page limits, each page on which there are words will be counted as one full page. Applicants must use the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Page numbers and an identifier may be within the 1″ margins.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, except titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions and all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. These items may be single-spaced. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs in the application narrative count toward the page limits.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). However, you may use a 10-point font in charts, tables, figures, graphs, footnotes, and endnotes.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit does not apply to the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424); the Supplemental Information for SF 424 Form; the Budget Information Summary Form (ED Form 524) and Budget Narrative; and the assurances and certifications. The page limit also does not apply to the table of contents, the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, the letters of support, program profile, or the studies. If you include any attachments or appendices, these items will be counted as part of the application narrative for purposes of the page-limit requirement. You must include your complete response to the selection criteria and priorities in the application narrative.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limits.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact one of the program contact persons listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site:
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through, Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the Alaska Native-Serving Institutions Program (CFDA number 84.031N) and the Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Program (CFDA number 84.031W) must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the ANNH Program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this program to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF (
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov
Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application.
These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department's application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to upload attachments in a read-only, non-modifiable PDF; failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department's requirements.
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact one of the program contact people listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Robyn Wood, Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 7E311, Washington, DC 20202. Fax: (202) 205-0063.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand-delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.031R or 84.031V), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application, by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.031R or 84.031V), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your
1.
a.
1. The strengths, weaknesses, and significant problems of the institution's academic programs, institutional management, and fiscal stability are clearly and comprehensively analyzed and result from a process that involved major constituencies of the institution;
2. The goals for the institution's academic programs, institutional management, and fiscal stability are realistic and based on comprehensive analysis;
3. The objectives stated in the plan are measurable, related to institutional goals, and, if achieved, will contribute to the growth and self-sufficiency of the institution; and
4. The plan clearly and comprehensively describes the methods and resources the institution will use to institutionalize practice and improvements developed under the proposed project, including, in particular, how operational costs for personnel, maintenance, and upgrades of equipment will be paid with institutional resources.
b.
1. Realistic and defined in terms of measurable results; and
2. Directly related to the problems to be solved and to the goals of the comprehensive development plan.
c.
1. The implementation strategy for each activity is comprehensive;
2. The rationale for the implementation strategy for each activity is clearly described and is supported by the results of relevant studies or projects; and
3. The timetable for each activity is realistic and likely to be attained.
d.
1. The past experience and training of key professional personnel are directly related to the stated activity objectives; and
2. The time commitment of key personnel is realistic.
e.
1. Procedures for managing the project are likely to ensure efficient and effective project implementation; and
2. The project coordinator and activity directors have sufficient authority to conduct the project effectively, including access to the president or chief executive officer.
f.
1. The data elements and the data collection procedures are clearly described and appropriate to measure the attainment of activity objectives and to measure the success of the project in achieving the goals of the comprehensive development plan; and
2. The data analysis procedures are clearly described and are likely to produce formative and summative results on attaining activity objectives and measuring the success of the project on achieving the goals of the comprehensive development plan.
g.
2.
We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
(a) Faculty development;
(b) Funds and administrative management;
(c) Development and improvement of academic programs;
(d) Acquisition of equipment for use in strengthening management and academic programs;
(e) Joint use of facilities; and
(f) Student services.
For the purpose of these funding considerations, we will use the most recent complete data available (
If a tie remains after applying the tie-breaker mechanism above, priority will be given to applicants that have the lowest endowment values per FTE enrolled student.
4.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
4.
(a) The percentage change, over the five-year period, of the number of full-time degree-seeking undergraduates enrolled at ANNHs. Note that this is a long-term measure, which will be used to periodically gauge performance;
(b) The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students at four-year ANNHs who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same ANNH;
(c) The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students at two-year ANNHs who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same ANNH;
(d) The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at four-year ANNHs who graduate within six years of enrollment; and
(e) The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at two-year ANNHs who graduate within three years of enrollment.
5.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
Full Text of Announcement
This priority is:
More than 35 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by strengthening the ability of parents to participate fully in the education of their children at school and at home (see section 601(c)(5)(B) of IDEA). Since the Department first funded CPRCs over 20 years ago, the CPRC program has helped parents in their communities set high expectations for children with disabilities and has provided parents with the information and training they need to help their children meet those expectations. Information about the Office of Special Education's parent training and information program can be found at:
CPRCs, consistent with section 671(b) of IDEA, help families in the geographically defined communities identified by the applicant: (a) Navigate systems that provide early intervention, special education, general education, postsecondary options, and related services; (b) understand the nature of their children's disabilities; (c) learn about their rights and responsibilities under IDEA; (d) expand their knowledge of evidence-based, as defined in this notice, education practices to help their children succeed; (e) strengthen their collaboration with professionals; (f) locate resources available for themselves and their children, which connects them to their local communities; and (g) advocate for improved student achievement, increased graduation rates, and improved postsecondary outcomes for all children through participation in school reform activities. In addition, CPRCs may help youth with disabilities in their communities have high expectations for themselves and understand their rights and responsibilities. In addition, effective CPRCs can partner with local agencies, providing expertise on how to better support families in their communities and help them access other community supports that empower families.
The CPRCs to be funded through this priority will provide parents with information, individual assistance, and training to enable them to: (a) Advocate for their children's access to appropriate services, including access to general education classrooms and extracurricular activities; (b) help their children meet developmental and academic goals; (c) help their children meet challenging expectations established for all children; and (d) prepare their children to achieve positive postsecondary outcomes that lead to lives that are as productive and independent as possible. In addition, all CPRCs will be required to help youth with disabilities become effective self-advocates.
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will—
(1) Address the needs of parents of children with disabilities who experience significant isolation from available sources of information and support for services that increase the parents' capacity to help their children improve their early learning, school-aged, and postsecondary outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must—
(i) Present appropriate information on the characteristics and needs of parents in the identified community who experience significant challenges identifying reliable sources of information and support, including, for example, low-income parents, parents with limited English proficiency, parents of incarcerated youth with disabilities, and parents with disabilities;
(ii) Present appropriate information about the identified community, including a description of its geographic area, population demographics, and the resources available in the community to support all families;
(iii) Demonstrate knowledge of best practices in providing training and information to parents and youth in the identified community;
(iv) Demonstrate knowledge of current evidence-based education practices and policy initiatives to improve outcomes in early intervention and early childhood, general and special education, transition services, and postsecondary options, including, if applicable to its community, the Promoting the Readiness of Minors in Supplemental Security Income (PROMISE) initiative; and
(v) Demonstrate knowledge of how to identify and work with appropriate partners in the community, including agencies providing Part C services under IDEA; local educational agencies (LEAs); child welfare agencies; disability-specific resources serving families, such as local service providers; and other community nonprofits serving families; and
(2) Address the needs of youth with disabilities for services that increase their capacity to be effective self-advocates. To meet this requirement, the applicant must—
(i) Present appropriate information on the needs of youth with disabilities in the identified community who experience significant isolation from available sources of information and support, including for example, youth who are low-income, homeless, or limited English proficient, have dropped out of school, or are in foster care or involved in the juvenile justice system;
(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of best practices in providing training and information to youth with disabilities in the identified community;
(iii) Demonstrate knowledge of best practices in self-advocacy; and
(iv) Demonstrate knowledge of how to work with appropriate partners serving youth with disabilities in the identified community, including local agencies, other nonprofits, and Independent Living Centers that provide assistance such as postsecondary education options, employment training, and supports.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application, under “Quality of the Project Services,” how the proposed project will—
(1) Use a project logic model (see paragraph (f)(1) of this priority) to guide the development of project plans and activities within the identified community;
(2) Develop and implement an outreach plan to inform parents of children with disabilities and youth with disabilities in the identified
(3) Provide services that increase parents' capacity to help their children with disabilities improve their early learning, school-aged, and postsecondary outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must include information as to how the services will—
(i) Increase parents' knowledge of—
(A) The nature of their children's disabilities, including their children's strengths and academic, behavioral, and developmental challenges;
(B) The importance of having high expectations for their children and how to help them meet those expectations;
(C) The local, State, and Federal resources available to assist them and their children, and local resources that strengthen their connection to their community;
(D) IDEA, Federal IDEA regulations, and State implementation of IDEA, including parents' role on Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) and Individualized Education Program (IEP) Teams and how to effectively participate on IFSP and IEP Teams;
(E) Other relevant educational and health care legislation, including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA); section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (section 504); and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA);
(F) Transition services at all levels, including: Part C early intervention to Part B preschool, preschool to elementary school, elementary school to secondary school, and secondary school to postsecondary education and workforce options;
(G) How their children can have access to the general education curriculum, including access to college- and career-ready academic standards and assessments; inclusive early learning programs; inclusive general education classrooms and settings; vocational education; extracurricular and enrichment opportunities available to all children; and other initiatives to make students college- and career-ready;
(H) Evidence-based early intervention and education practices that improve early learning, school-aged, and postsecondary outcomes;
(I) Local school reform efforts to improve student achievement and increase graduation rates; and
(J) The use of data to inform instruction and advance school reform efforts;
(ii) Increase parents' capacity to—
(A) Effectively support their children with disabilities and participate in their children's education;
(B) Communicate effectively and work collaboratively in partnership with early intervention service providers, school-based personnel, related services personnel, and administrators;
(C) Resolve disputes effectively; and
(D) Participate in school reform activities to improve outcomes for all children;
(4) Provide services that increase youth with disabilities' capacity to be effective self-advocates. To meet this requirement, the applicant must include information as to how the services will—
(i) Increase the knowledge of youth with disabilities about—
(A) The nature of their disabilities, including their strengths, and their academic, behavioral, and developmental challenges;
(B) The importance of having high expectations for themselves and how to meet those expectations;
(C) The resources available to support their success in secondary and postsecondary education and employment and full participation in their communities;
(D) IDEA, section 504, ADA, and other legislation and policies that affect people with disabilities;
(E) Their rights and responsibilities while receiving services under IDEA and after transitioning to post-school programs, services, and employment;
(F) How they can participate on IEP Teams; and
(G) Supported decisionmaking necessary to transition to adult life; and
(ii) Increase the capacity of youth with disabilities to advocate for themselves, including communicating effectively and working in partnership with providers;
(5) Use various methods to deliver services that are appropriate in the context of the identified community;
(6) Use best practices to provide training and information to adult learners and youth in the identified community;
(7) Establish cooperative partnerships with any Parent Training and Information Center and any other CPRCs funded in the State under sections 671 and 672 of IDEA, respectively; and
(8) Network with local and State organizations and agencies, such as the Part C State Interagency Coordinating Council, the Part B State Advisory Panel, and protection and advocacy agencies that serve parents and families of children with disabilities, to better support the families and children with disabilities in the identified community to effectively and efficiently access IDEA services.
(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application, under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” how—
(1) The applicant will evaluate how well the goals or objectives of the proposed project, as described in its logic model, have been met, including a description of how the applicant will measure the outcomes proposed in the logic model (see paragraph (f)(1) of this priority). The description must include—
(i) Proposed evaluation methodologies appropriate to the scope of the project and the identified community, including proposed instruments, data collection methods, and analyses; and
(ii) Proposed criteria for determining if the project has reached and served families and youth in the identified community; and
(2) The proposed project will use the evaluation results to examine its implementation and its progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project Resources,” how—
(1) The proposed personnel, consultants, and contractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the intended outcomes identified in the project logic model (see paragraph (f)(1) of this priority);
(2) The applicant will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have historically been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, linguistic diversity, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate; and
(3) The applicant and key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how—
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the intended outcomes identified in the project logic model (see paragraph (f)(1) of this priority) will be achieved on time and within budget;
(2) The time of key personnel, consultants, and contractors will be sufficiently allocated to the project;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the services provided are of high quality;
(4) The board of directors will be used to provide appropriate oversight to the project;
(5) The proposed project benefits from a diversity of perspectives, including those of parents, providers, and
(6) The proposed project will ensure that the Annual Performance Reports submitted to the Department will—
(i) Be accurate and timely;
(ii) Include information on the projects' outputs and outcomes; and
(iii) Include, at a minimum, the number and demographics of parents and youth to whom the CPRC provided information and training, and the levels of service provided to them; and
(7) The project management and staff will—
(i) Make use of the technical assistance (TA) and products provided by the Center on Parent Information and Resources, Regional Parent Technical Assistance Centers (PTACs), Native American PTAC, Military PTAC, and other TA centers funded by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), as appropriate, including the PROMISE TA Center, in order to serve parents of children with disabilities and youth with disabilities as effectively as possible;
(ii) Participate in developing individualized TA plans with the Regional PTAC as appropriate; and
(iii) Facilitate one site visit from the Regional PTAC during the grant cycle.
(f) In the narrative or appendices as directed, the applicant must—
(1) Include, in Appendix A, a logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project. A logic model communicates how a project will achieve its intended outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project;
(2) Include, in Appendix A, person-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative; and
(3) Include, in the budget, attendance by the project director at one OSEP meeting in Washington DC annually, to be determined by OSEP;
20 U.S.C. 1471 and 1481.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2017 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
Section 671(a)(2) of IDEA defines a “parent organization” as a private nonprofit organization (other than an institution of higher education) that—
(a) Has a board of directors—
(1) The majority of whom are parents of children with disabilities ages birth through 26;
(2) That includes—
(i) Individuals working in the fields of special education, related services, and early intervention; and
(ii) Individuals with disabilities; and
(3) The parent and professional members of which are broadly representative of the population to be served, including low-income parents and parents of limited English proficient children; and
(b) Has as its mission serving families of children with disabilities who are ages birth through 26, and have the full range of disabilities described in section 602(3) of IDEA.
2.
3.
(b) The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application.
4.
(a) Recipients of funding under this program must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
(b) Each applicant for, and recipient of, funding under this program must involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).
1.
To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address:
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.328C.
To obtain a copy from the program office, contact: Carmen Sanchez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5175, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6595. If you use a TDD or TTY, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit Part III to no more than 50 pages, using the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit and double-spacing requirements do not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the page limit and double-spacing requirements do apply to all of Part III, the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit in the application narrative section; or if you apply standards other than those specified in the application package.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site:
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through, Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the Community Parent Resource Centers competition, CFDA number 84.328C, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the Community Parent Resource Centers competition at
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF (
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all the Grants.gov validation requirements or if there were any errors (such as submission of your application by someone other than a registered Authorized Organization Representative, or inclusion of an attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you must still meet the deadline for submission of applications.
Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application.
These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department's application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to upload attachments in a read-only, non-modifiable PDF; failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department's requirements.
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Carmen Sanchez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5175, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. FAX: (202) 245-7617.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.328C), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.328C), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
4.
Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590).
5.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Carmen Sanchez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5175, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6595.
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Commission staff members Ryan Hansen (Office of Energy Projects 202-502-8074;
As “non-decisional” staff, Mr. Hansen and Ms. Liberty will not participate in an advisory capacity in the Commission's review of any offer of settlement or settlement agreement, or deliberations concerning the disposition of the relicense application.
Different Commission “advisory staff” will be assigned to review any offer of settlement or settlement agreement, and to process the relicense application, including providing advice to the Commission with respect to the agreement and the application. Non-decisional staff and advisory staff are prohibited from communicating with one another concerning the settlement and the relicense application.
Take notice that during the months of November 2015 and January 2016, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).
On November 13, 2015, Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Millennium) filed an application in Docket No. CP16-17-000 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 Valley Lateral Project (Project), and would provide approximately 130,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of firm transportation service to CPV Valley, LLC to serve a new natural gas combined-cycle electric generator in the Town of Wawayanda, New York (CPV Valley Energy Center).
On November 30, 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.
Millennium proposes to construct, install, own, and maintain the proposed Valley Lateral Project, which would involve construction of an approximately 7.9-mile, 16-inch diameter lateral pipeline from Millennium's existing mainline in Orange County, New York to the CPV Valley Energy Center. The Project would also involve construction of a new meter station within the CPV Valley Energy Center property, and pig launcher and receiver facilities.
On July 6, 2015, the Commission issued a
The EPA and New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets are cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EA.
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 received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On February 22, 2016, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL16-37-000, 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 Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, Tucson Electric Power Company, UNS Electric, Inc. and UniSource Energy Development Company's (collectively Applicants) market based rates in the Tucson Electric balancing authority area.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL16-37-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On February 22, 2016, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL16-36-000, 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 Arizona Public Service Company's market based rates in the Tucson Electric balancing authority area.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL16-36-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Rover Pipeline, Panhandle Backhaul, and Trunkline Backhaul Projects (Projects), proposed by Rover Pipeline, LLC (Rover), Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP (Panhandle), and Trunkline Gas Company, LLC (Trunkline), respectively, in the above-referenced dockets. Rover requests authorization to construct, operate, and maintain certain natural gas pipeline facilities to transport about 3.25 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of stranded natural gas from Marcellus and Utica production areas in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio to markets in the United States and Canada. Panhandle requests authorization to modify existing facilities and install an interconnection with Rover in Defiance County, Ohio to accommodate 0.75 Bcf/d of east-to-west firm transportation service. Trunkline would modify existing facilities, including piping at the existing Panhandle-Trunkline Interconnect in Douglas County, Illinois to provide 0.75 Bcf/d of north-to-south firm transportation service.
The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Projects in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the Projects would have some adverse and significant environmental impacts; however, these impacts would be reduced to acceptable levels with the implementation of Rover's, Panhandle's, and Trunkline's proposed mitigation and the additional measures recommended by staff in the draft EIS.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OHEPA), and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposals and participate in the NEPA analysis. Although the cooperating agencies provided input to the conclusions and recommendations presented in the draft EIS, the agencies will present their own conclusions and recommendations in their respective Records of Decision for the Projects.
The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following facilities:
• 510.7 miles of new 24- to 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline and appurtenant facilities that include 10 new compressor stations, 19 new meter stations, 5 new tie-ins, 78 mainline valves, and 11 pig launcher and receiver facilities.
• modifications by Panhandle at four existing compressor stations, one interconnection, and three valve sites; and
• modifications by Trunkline at four existing compressor stations and one meter station.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the draft EIS to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. Paper copy versions of this EIS were mailed to those specifically requesting them; all others received a CD version. In addition, the draft EIS is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. To ensure consideration of your comments on the
For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the applicable project docket number (CP15-93-000, CP15-94-000, or CP15-96-000) with your submission:
(4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend one of the public comment meetings its staff will conduct in the Project area to receive comments on the draft EIS. The date, time, and location of the public comment meetings will be published in a separate Notice and will be mailed to all those receiving the draft EIS and posted on the FERC Web site (
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR part 385.214).
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
On January 22, 2016, Alpine Pacific Utilities, LLC filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Fresno Dam Site Water Power Project (Fresno Dam Project or project) to be located in Hill County, Montana near the town of Kremlin at the existing Bureau of Reclamation Fresno Dam located on the Milk River. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would utilize the existing outlet structure on Fresno Dam. The proposed project would consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 48-inch-diameter, 100-foot-long bifurcated penstock leading from the existing outlet works; (2) a powerhouse containing two turbines/generating units with a combined installed capacity of 1.348 megawatts; (3) a tailrace discharging flows into the existing dam spillway; (4) a transformer in a 25-square-foot switchyard; (5) an approximately 1-mile-long, 12.74-kilovolt overhead transmission line connecting to existing Hill County Electric and Northwest Electric transmission systems; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an average annual generation of 4,700 megawatt-hours
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments,
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 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 date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On September 9, 2015, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) filed an application in Docket No. CP15-552-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate a new compressor station in Gaines County, Texas. The proposed project is known as the Gaines County Crossover Compressor Station Project (Project), and would deliver an additional 210 million standard cubic feet of natural gas per day to supply natural gas for electrical power plants.
On September 22, 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.
The Project would include installation of two compressor units with a combined horsepower of 18,089. The suction side of the compressor station would be connected to Northern's existing 30-inch-diameter Spraberry to Plains Pipeline. The station would discharge to Northern's existing 30-inch-diameter Kermit to Beaver Pipeline. The proposed Project would also include the installation of two compressor buildings, a control building, an auxiliary building, associated above-grade and below-grade piping, and valves and instrumentation.
On October 22, 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 received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests, and recommendations is 30 days from the date of issuance of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests, and recommendations is 15 days from the date of issuance of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Take notice that on February 4, 2016, Impulsora Pipeline, LLC (Impulsora) filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations seeking to amend its section 3 authorizations and its Presidential Permit which were issued in an order by the Commission on May 14, 2015 (May 14 Order). Specifically, Impulsora requests termination of its authorization to construct and operate the 12-inch-diameter pipeline, but retain authorization to construct and operate the 36-inch-diameter pipeline authorized in the May 14 Order, all as more fully described in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Kenneth Simon, Latham & Watkins, LLP, 555 Eleventh Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004, or call (202) 637-2397, or by email
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that on February 18, 2016, Cameron Interstate Pipeline LLC (Cameron), 488 8th Avenue, San Diego, California 92101, filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations to amend the certificate of public convenience and necessity granted to Cameron on June 19, 2014 in Docket No. CP13-27-000, to decrease the diameter of 3.58 miles of pipeline from 42 to 36 inches, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to William D. Rapp, Cameron Interstate Pipeline LLC, 488 8th Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101, by telephone at (619) 699-5050.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on February 19, 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(a)(2) (2015), Morongo Transmission LLC (Morongo) filed a petition for declaratory order stating that amounts invested by Morongo Transmission in the West of Devers Transmission Upgrade Project in excess of $400 million will receive the same rate treatment that the Commission authorized in its August 25, 2014 order,
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 an FERC Online service, please email
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared this environmental assessment for the Columbia to Eastover Project (Project) proposed by Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission, L.L.C. in the above-referenced docket. Dominion Carolina Gas requests authorization to construct, install, own, operate and maintain certain facilities located in Calhoun, Richland, and Lexington Counties, South Carolina. This Project would enable Dominion Carolina Gas to provide 18 million cubic feet per day of firm transportation service to the existing International Paper Plant in Eastover, South Carolina.
Specifically, the proposed Project includes the following facilities:
• 28 miles of new 8-inch-diameter pipeline;
• a pig launcher;
• a joint new pig receiver and meter and regulator station;
• cathodic protection; and
• eight mainline valves along the pipeline.
The environmental assessment assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The environmental assessment has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site at
Copies of the environmental assessment have been mailed to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; libraries in the Project area; and parties to this proceeding.
Any person wishing to comment on the environmental assessment may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that the FERC receives your comments in Washington, DC on or before March 21, 2016.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number (CP15-504-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated eFiling expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at
(2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at
(3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Although your comments will be considered by the Commission, simply filing comments will not serve to make the commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.
In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA” or the “Act”), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Preserve Pepe`ekeo Health and Environment (“PPHE”) in the United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i:
Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0055, online at
Anthony Moffa, Air and Radiation Law Office (2322A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-1087; email address:
The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by PPHE seeking to compel the Administrator to take actions under CAA section 505(b)(2). Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA would agree to sign its response granting or denying the petition filed by PPHE regarding the Hu Honua Bioenergy Facility located in Pepe`ekeo, Hawaii, pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the CAA, on or before September 16, 2016.
Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA would expeditiously deliver notice of EPA's response to the Office of the Federal Register for review and publication following signature of such response. In addition, the proposed consent decree outlines the procedure for the Plaintiffs to request costs of litigation, including attorney fees.
For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who are not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the consent decree will be affirmed.
The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0055) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (“OEI”) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at
You may submit comments as provided in the
If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
Use of the
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 proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid 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 26, 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 Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
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 26, 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.
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 Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before March 28, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
The Commission first adopted a public inspection file requirement for broadcasters more than 40 years ago. The public file requirement grew out of Congress' 1960 amendment of Sections 309 and 311 of the Communications Act of 1934. Finding that Congress, in enacting these provisions, was guarding “the right of the general public to be informed, not merely the rights of those who have special interests,” the Commission adopted the public inspection file requirement to “make information to which the public already has a right more readily available, so that the public will be encouraged to play a more active part in dialogue with broadcast licensees.” The information provided in the public file enables citizens to engage in an informed dialog with their local video provider or to file complaints regarding provider operations. Satellite TV (also known as “Direct Broadcast Satellite” or “DBS”) providers and satellite radio (also referred to as “Satellite Digital Audio Radio Services” or “SDARS”) licensees have public and political file requirements modeled, in large part, on the longstanding broadcast requirements. With respect to DBS providers, the Commission adopted public and political inspection file requirements in 1998 in conjunction with the imposition of certain public interest obligations, including political broadcasting requirements, on those entities. DBS providers were required to “abide by political file obligations similar to those requirements placed on terrestrial broadcasters and cable systems” and were also required to maintain a public file with records relating to other DBS public interest obligations. The Commission imposed equal employment opportunity and political broadcast requirements on SDARS licensees in 1997, noting that the rationale behind imposing these requirements on broadcasters also applies to satellite radio.
47 CFR 25.701(d) requires each DBS provider to keep and permit public inspection of a complete and orderly record (political file) of all requests for DBS origination time made by or on behalf of candidates for public office, together with an appropriate notation showing the disposition made by the provider of such requests, and the charges made, if any, if the request is granted. The disposition includes the schedule of time purchased, when the spots actually aired, the rates charged, and the classes of time purchased. Also, when free time is provided for use by or on behalf of candidates, a record of the free time provided is to be placed in the political file. All records required to be retained by this section must be placed in the political file as soon as possible and retained for a period of two years. DBS providers must make available, by fax, email, or by mail upon telephone request, copies of documents in their political files and assist callers by answering questions about the contents of their political files. If a requester prefers access by mail, the DBS provider must pay for postage but may require individuals requesting documents to pay for photocopying. If a DBS provider places its political file on its Web site, it may refer the public to the Web site in lieu of mailing copies.
Any material required to be maintained in the political file must be made available to the public by either mailing or Web site access or both.
The R&O changes 47 CFR 25.701(d) to require DBS providers to place all new political file material required to be retained by this section in the online file hosted by the Commission. The R&O also eliminates the requirement that DBS providers honor requests by telephone for copies of political file materials if those materials are made available online.
47 CFR 25.701(f)(6) requires each DBS provider to maintain a public file containing a complete and orderly record of quarterly measurements of: channel capacity and yearly average calculations on which it bases its four percent reservation, as well as its responses to any capacity changes; a record of entities to whom noncommercial capacity is being provided, the amount of capacity being provided to each entity, the conditions under which it is being provided and the rates, if any, being paid by the entity; and a record of entities that have requested capacity, disposition of those requests and reasons for the disposition. All records required by this provision must be placed in a file available to the public as soon as possible and be retained for a period of two years.
The R&O changes 47 CFR 25.701(f)(6) to require DBS providers to place all public file material required to be retained by this section in the online file hosted by the Commission. The R&O also requires that each DBS provider place in the online file the records required to be placed in the public inspection file by 47 CFR 25.701(e)(commercial limits in children's programs) and by 47 CFR 25.601 and Part 76, Subpart E (equal employment opportunity requirements) and retain those records for the period required by those rules. In addition, the R&O requires each DBS provider to provide a link to the public inspection file hosted on the Commission's Web site from the home page of its own Web site, if the provider has a Web site, and provide on its Web site contact information for a representative who can assist any person with disabilities with issues related to the content of the public files. Each DBS provider is also required to include in the online public file the name, phone number, and email address of the licensee's designated contact for questions about the public file. In addition, each DBS provider must place the address of the provider's local public file in the Commission's online file unless the provider has fully transitioned to the FCC's online public file (
47 CFR 25.702. The R&O adds this new rule. New 47 CFR 25.702(b) requires each SDARS licensee to maintain a complete and orderly record (political file) of all requests for SDARS origination time made by or on behalf of candidates for public office, together with the disposition made by the provider of such requests, and the charges made, if any, if the request is granted. The disposition must include the schedule of time purchased, when the spots actually aired, the rates charged, and the classes of time purchased. Also, when free time is provided for use by or on behalf of candidates, a record of the free time provided is to be placed in the political file. SDARS licensees are required to place all records required by this section in the political file as soon as possible and retain the record for a period of two years.
New 47 CFR 25.702(c) requires each SDARS applicant or licensee to place in the online file hosted by the Commission the records required to be placed in the public inspection file by 47 CFR 25.601 and 73.2080 (equal employment opportunities) and to retain those records for the period required by those rules. Each SDARS licensee must provide a link to the public inspection file hosted on the Commission's Web site from the home page of its own Web site, if the licensee has a Web site, and provide on its Web site contact information for a representative who can assist any person with disabilities with issues related to the content of the public files. Each SDARS licensee is also required to include in the online public file the name, phone number, and email address of the licensee's designated contact for questions about the public file. In addition, each SDARS licensee must place the address of the provider's local public file in the Commission's online file unless the provider has fully transitioned to the FCC's online public file (
With respect to broadcast radio licensees, the Commission commenced the transition to an online file with commercial stations in larger markets with five or more full-time employees, while postponing temporarily all online file requirements for other radio stations. The R&O also requires stations to provide information to the online file regarding the location of the station's main studio.
With respect to cable operator public file requirements, the R&O phased-in the requirement to commence uploading political file documents to the online file for smaller cable systems and exempted cable systems with fewer than 1,000 subscribers from all online public file requirements.
The R&O expands to cable operators the requirement that public inspection files be posted to an FCC- hosted online public file database. The Commission stated that its goal is to make information that these entities are already required to make publicly available more accessible while also reducing costs both for the government and the public sector. The Commission took the same general approach to transitioning cable operators to the online file that it took with television broadcasters in 2012, tailoring the requirements as necessary to the different services. The Commission also took similar measures to minimize the effort and cost entities must undertake to move their public files online. Specifically, the Commission required cable operators to upload to the online public file only documents that are not already on file with the Commission or that the Commission maintains in its own database. The Commission also exempted existing political file material from the online file requirement and required that political file documents be uploaded only on a going-forward basis.
Section 76.1700 addresses the records to be maintained by cable system operators. The R&O revised Section 76.1700 to require that cable operators maintain their public inspection file online on the Web site hosted by the FCC. In addition, the Commission reorganized Section 76.1700 to more clearly address which records must be maintained in the public inspection file versus those that must be made available to the Commission or franchising authority upon request. Among other changes, the Commission clarified that proof-of-performance test data and signal leakage logs and repair data must be made available only to the Commission and, in the case of proof-of-performance test data, also to the franchisor, and not to the public. Accordingly, this information is not required to be included in the public inspection file or in the online public inspection file.
The Commission phased-in the requirement to commence uploading political file documents to the online file for smaller cable systems and exempted cable systems with fewer than 1,000 subscribers from all online public file requirements. The R&O also made several minor additional changes to the existing cable public file requirements—it requires operators, when first establishing their online public file, to provide a list of the zip codes served by the system and requires them to identify the employment unit(s) associated with the system. The R&O also requires cable systems to provide the contact information for their local file. In addition, each cable system must place the address of its local public file in the Commission's online file unless the system has fully transitioned to the FCC's online public file (
Apart from these minor exceptions, the R&O does not adopt new or modified public inspection file requirements. The Commission's goal was simply to adapt the existing cable public file requirements to an online format.
47 CFR 76.1700 requires cable system operators to place the public inspection file materials required to be retained by the following rules in the online public file hosted by the Commission, with the exception of existing political file material which cable systems may continue to retain in their local public file until the end of the retention period: 76.1701 (political file), 76.1702 (EEO), 76.1703 (commercial records for children's programming), 76.1705 (performance tests—channels delivered); 76.1707 (leased access); and
47 CFR 76.1700(b) requires cable system operators to make the records required to be retained by the following rules available to local franchising authorities: 76.1704 (proof-of-performance test data) and 76.1713 (complaint resolution).
47 CFR 76.1700(c) requires cable system operators to make the records required to be retained by the following rules available to the Commission: 76.1704 (proof-of-performance test data), 76.1706 (signal leakage logs and repair records), 76.1711 (emergency alert system and activations), 76.1713 (complaint resolution), and 76.1716 (subscriber records).
47 CFR 76.1700(d) exempts cable television systems having fewer than 1,000 subscribers from the online public file and the public inspection requirements contained in 47 CFR 76.1701 (political file); 76.1702 (equal employment opportunity); 76.1703 (commercial records for children's programming); 76.1704 (proof-of-performance test data); 76.1706 (signal leakage logs and repair records); and 76.1715 (sponsorship identifications).
47 CFR 76.1700(e) requires that public file material that continues to be retained at the system be retained in a public inspection file maintained at the office which the system operator maintains for the ordinary collection of subscriber charges, resolution of subscriber complaints, and other business or at any accessible place in the community served by the system unit(s) (such as a public registry for documents or an attorney's office). Public files must be available for public inspection during regular business hours.
47 CFR 76.1700(f) requires cable systems to provide a link to the public inspection file hosted on the Commission's Web site from the home page of its own Web site, if the system has a Web site, and provide contact information on its Web site for a system representative who can assist any person with disabilities with issues related to the content of the public files. A system also is required to include in the online public file the address of the system's local public file, if the system retains documents in the local file that are not available in the Commission's online file, and the name, phone number, and email address of the system's designated contact for questions about the public file. In addition, a system must provide on the online public file a list of the five digit ZIP codes served by the system.
47 CFR 76.1700(g) requires that cable operators make any material in the public inspection file that is not also available in the Commission's online file available for machine reproduction upon request made in person, provided the requesting party shall pay the reasonable cost of reproduction. Requests for machine copies must be fulfilled at a location specified by the system operator, within a reasonable period of time, which in no event shall be longer than seven days. The system operator is not required to honor requests made by mail but may do so if it chooses.
47 CFR 76.1702(a) requires that every employment unit with six or more full-time employees shall maintain for public inspection a file containing copies of all EEO program annual reports filed with the Commission and the equal employment opportunity program information described in 47 76.1702(b). These materials shall be placed in the Commission's online public inspection file for each cable system associated with the employment unit. These materials must be placed in the Commission's online public inspection file annually by the date that the unit's EEO program annual report is due to be filed and shall be retained for a period of five years. A headquarters employment unit file and a file containing a consolidated set of all documents pertaining to the other employment units of a multichannel video programming distributor that operates multiple units shall be maintained in the Commission's online public file for every cable system associated with the headquarters employment unit.
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 proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid 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 26, 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 Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
Due to consolidation in the telecommunications marketplace, there is a decrease in the Commission's burden estimates. Section 69.605 requires that access revenues and cost data shall be reported by participants in association tariffs to the association for computation of monthly pool revenues distributions. The association shall submit a report on or before February 1 of each calendar year describing the associations' cost study review process for the preceding calendar year as well as the results of that process. For any revisions to the cost study results made or recommended by the association that would change the respective carrier's calculated annual common line or traffic sensitive revenue requirement by ten percent or more, the report shall include the following information:
(1) Name of the carrier;
(2) A detailed description of the revisions;
(3) The amount of the revisions;
(4) The impact of the revisions on the carrier's calculated common line and traffic sensitive revenue requirements; and
(5) The carrier's total annual common line and traffic sensitive revenue requirement. The information is used to compute charges in tariffs for access service (or origination and termination) and to compute revenue pool distributions. Neither process could be implemented without the information.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the notices must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 24, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2016.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Nithan Sannappa (202) 326-3185 or Jarad Brown (202) 326-2927, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before March 24, 2016. Write “ASUSTeK Computer Inc.,—Consent Agreement; File No. 142-3156” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “ASUSTeK Computer Inc.,—Consent Agreement; File No. 142-3156” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent order applicable to ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. (“ASUS”).
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
ASUS is a hardware manufacturer that, among other things, sells routers, and related software and services, intended for consumer use. Routers forward data packets along a network. In addition to routing network traffic, consumer routers typically function as a hardware firewall for the local network, and act as the first line of defense in protecting consumer devices on the local network, such as computers, smartphones, internet-protocol (“IP”) cameras, and other connected appliances, against malicious incoming traffic from the internet. ASUS marketed its routers as including security features such as “intrusion detection,” and instructed consumers to “enable the [router's] firewall to protect your local network against attacks from hackers.”
Many of ASUS's routers also include “cloud” software features called AiCloud and AiDisk that allow consumers to attach a USB storage device to their router and then wirelessly access and share files. ASUS publicized AiCloud as a “private personal cloud for selective file sharing” that featured “indefinite storage and increased privacy” and described the feature as “the most complete, accessible, and secure cloud platform.” Similarly, ASUS promoted AiDisk as a way to “safely secure and access your treasured data through your router.”
The Commission's complaint alleges that, despite these representations, ASUS engaged in a number of practices that, taken together, failed to provide reasonable security in the design and maintenance of the software developed for its routers and related “cloud” features. The complaint challenges these failures as both deceptive and unfair. Among other things, the complaint alleges that ASUS failed to:
a. Perform security architecture and design reviews to ensure that the software is designed securely, including failing to:
i. Use readily-available secure protocols when designing features intended to provide consumers with access to their sensitive personal information. For example, ASUS designed the AiDisk feature to use FTP rather than a protocol that supports transit encryption;
ii. implement secure default settings or, at the least, provide sufficient information that would ensure that consumers did not unintentionally expose sensitive personal information;
iii. prevent consumers from using weak default login credentials. For example, respondent allowed consumers to retain weak default login credentials to protect critical functions, such as username “admin” and password “admin” for the admin console, and username “Family” and
b. perform reasonable and appropriate code review and testing of the software to verify that access to data is restricted consistent with a user's privacy and security settings;
c. perform vulnerability and penetration testing of the software, including for well-known and reasonably foreseeable vulnerabilities that could be exploited to gain unauthorized access to consumers' sensitive personal information and local networks, such as authentication bypass, clear-text password disclosure, cross-site scripting, cross-site request forgery, and buffer overflow vulnerabilities;
d. implement readily-available, low-cost protections against well-known and reasonably foreseeable vulnerabilities, as described in (c), such as input validation, anti-CSRF tokens, and session time-outs;
e. maintain an adequate process for receiving and addressing security vulnerability reports from third parties such as security researchers and academics;
f. perform sufficient analysis of reported vulnerabilities in order to correct or mitigate all reasonably detectable instances of a reported vulnerability, such as those elsewhere in the software or in future releases; and
g. provide adequate notice to consumers regarding (i) known vulnerabilities or security risks, (ii) steps that consumers could take to mitigate such vulnerabilities or risks, and (iii) the availability of software updates that would correct or mitigate the vulnerabilities or risks.
The Complaint further alleges that, due to these failures, ASUS has subjected its customers to a significant risk that their sensitive personal information and local networks will be subject to unauthorized access. For example, on or before February 1, 2014, a group of hackers exploited vulnerabilities and design flaws in ASUS's routers to gain unauthorized access to thousands of consumers' USB storage devices. Numerous consumers reported having their routers compromised, and some complained that a major search engine had indexed the files that the vulnerable routers had exposed, making them easily searchable online. Others claimed to be the victims of related identity theft, including a consumer who claimed identity thieves had gained unauthorized access to his USB storage device, which contained his family's sensitive personal information, such as login credentials, social security numbers, dates of birth, and tax returns. According to the consumer, the identity thieves used this information to make thousands of dollars of fraudulent charges to his financial accounts, requiring him to cancel accounts and place a fraud alert on his credit report. In addition, in April 2015, a malware researcher discovered a large-scale, active exploit campaign that reconfigured vulnerable routers so that the attackers could control and redirect consumers' web traffic. This exploit campaign specifically targeted numerous ASUS router models.
The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent ASUS from engaging in the future in practices similar to those alleged in the complaint. Part I of the proposed consent order prohibits ASUS from misrepresenting: (1) The extent to which it maintains and protects the security of any covered device (including routers), or the security, privacy, confidentiality, or integrity of any covered information; (2) the extent to which a consumer can use a covered device to secure a network; and (3) the extent to which a covered device is using up-to-date software.
Part II of the proposed consent order requires ASUS to establish and implement, and thereafter maintain, a comprehensive security program that is reasonably designed to (1) address security risks related to the development and management of new and existing covered devices; and (2) protect the privacy, security, confidentiality, and integrity of covered information. The security program must contain administrative, technical, and physical safeguards appropriate to ASUS's size and complexity, nature and scope of its activities, and the sensitivity of the covered device's function or the sensitivity of the covered information. Specifically, the proposed order requires ASUS to:
a. Designate an employee or employees to coordinate and be accountable for the information security program;
b. identify material internal and external risks to the security of covered devices that could result in unauthorized access to or unauthorized modification of a covered device, and assess the sufficiency of any safeguards in place to control these risks;
c. identify material internal and external risks to the privacy, security, confidentiality, and integrity of covered information that could result in the unintentional exposure of such information by consumers or the unauthorized disclosure, misuse, loss, alteration, destruction, or other compromise of such information, and assessment of the sufficiency of any safeguards in place to control these risks;
d. consider risks in each area of relevant operation, including, but not limited to: (1) Employee training and management, including in secure engineering and defensive programming; (2) product design, development, and research; (3) secure software design, development, and testing, including for default settings; (4) review, assessment, and response to third-party security vulnerability reports, and (5) prevention, detection, and response to attacks, intrusions, or systems failures;
e. design and implement reasonable safeguards to control the risks identified through risk assessment, including through reasonable and appropriate software security testing techniques, and regularly test or monitor the effectiveness of the safeguards' key controls, systems, and procedures;
f. develop and use reasonable steps to select and retain service providers capable of maintaining security practices consistent with the order, and require service providers by contract to implement and maintain appropriate safeguards; and
g. evaluate and adjust its information security program in light of the results of testing and monitoring, any material changes to ASUS's operations or business arrangement, or any other circumstances that it knows or has reason to know may have a material impact on its security program.
Part III of the proposed consent order requires ASUS to obtain, within the first one hundred eighty (180) days after service of the order and on a biennial basis thereafter for a period of twenty (20) years, an assessment and report from a qualified, objective, independent third-party professional, certifying, among other things, that: (1) It has in place a security program that provides protections that meet or exceed the protections required by Part II of the proposed consent order; and (2) its security program is operating with sufficient effectiveness to provide reasonable assurance that the security of covered devices and the privacy, security, confidentiality, and integrity of covered information is protected.
Part IV of the proposed consent order requires ASUS to provide clear and conspicuous notice to consumers when a software update for a covered device that addresses a security flaw is available or when ASUS is aware of reasonable steps that a consumer could take to mitigate a security flaw in a covered device. In addition to posting
Parts V through IX of the proposed consent order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part V requires ASUS to retain documents relating to its compliance with the order. The order requires that materials relied upon to prepare the assessments required by Part III be retained for a three-year period, and that all other documents related to compliance with the order be retained for a five-year period. Part VI requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to all current and future subsidiaries, current and future principals, officers, directors, and managers, and to all current and future employees, agents, and representatives having supervisory responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part VII ensures notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status. Part VIII mandates that ASUS submit a compliance report to the FTC within 60 days, and periodically thereafter as requested. Part IX is a provision “sunsetting” the order after (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed consent order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or consent order or to modify the consent order's terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces that a public meeting of the Medicare Evidence Development & Coverage Advisory Committee (MEDCAC) (“Committee”) will be held on Wednesday, April 27, 2016. This meeting will specifically focus on obtaining the MEDCAC's recommendations regarding the definition of treatment resistant depression (TRD) as well as to advise CMS on the use of the definition of TRD in the context of coverage with evidence development and treatment outcomes. This meeting is open to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)).
We will be broadcasting the meeting live via Webcast at
Maria Ellis, Executive Secretary for MEDCAC, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, Coverage and Analysis Group, S3-02-01, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244 or contact Ms. Ellis by phone (410-786-0309) or via email at
MEDCAC, formerly known as the Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee (MCAC), is advisory in nature, with all final coverage decisions resting with CMS. MEDCAC is used to supplement CMS' internal expertise. Accordingly, the advice rendered by the MEDCAC is most useful when it results from a process of full scientific inquiry and thoughtful discussion, in an open forum, with careful framing of recommendations and clear identification of the basis of those recommendations. MEDCAC members are valued for their background, education, and expertise in a wide variety of scientific, clinical, and other related fields. (For more information on MCAC, see the MEDCAC Charter (
This notice announces the Wednesday, April 27, 2016, public meeting of the Committee. During this meeting, the Committee will discuss recommendations regarding the definition of treatment resistant depression (TRD) and provide advice to CMS on the use of the definition of TRD in the context of coverage with evidence development and treatment outcomes. Background information about this topic, including panel materials, is available at
The Committee will deliberate openly on the topics under consideration. Interested persons may observe the deliberations, but the Committee will not hear further comments during this time except at the request of the chairperson. The Committee will also allow a 15-minute unscheduled open public session for any attendee to address issues specific to the topics under consideration. At the conclusion of the day, the members will vote and the Committee will make its recommendation(s) to CMS.
CMS' Coverage and Analysis Group is coordinating meeting registration. While there is no registration fee, individuals must register to attend. You may register online at
This meeting will be held in a federal government building; therefore, federal security measures are applicable. The Real ID Act, enacted in 2005, establishes minimum standards for the issuance of state-issued driver's licenses and identification (ID) cards. It prohibits Federal agencies from accepting an official driver's license or ID card from a state unless the Department of Homeland Security determines that the state meets these standards. Beginning October 2015, photo IDs (such as a valid driver's license) issued by a state or territory not in compliance with the Real ID Act will not be accepted as identification to enter Federal buildings. Visitors from these states/territories will need to provide alternative proof of identification (such as a valid passport) to gain entrance into CMS buildings. The current list of states from which a Federal agency may accept driver's licenses for an official purpose is found at
• Presentation of government-issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel.
• Inspection of vehicle's interior and exterior (this includes engine and trunk inspection) at the entrance to the grounds. Parking permits and instructions will be issued after the vehicle inspection.
• Inspection, via metal detector or other applicable means, of all persons entering the building. We note that all items brought into CMS, whether personal or for the purpose of presentation or to support a presentation, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for presentation or to support a presentation.
Note: Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting. The public may not enter the building earlier than 45 minutes prior to the convening of the meeting.
All visitors must be escorted in areas other than the lower and first floor levels in the Central Building.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by March 28, 2016.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
This information collection will ensure that approximately 90 million consumers shopping for or enrolled in private, individually purchased, or non-federal governmental group health plan coverage receive the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act. Employers, employees, and individuals will use this information to compare coverage options prior to selecting coverage and to understand the terms of, and extent of medical benefits offered by, their coverage (or exceptions to such coverage or benefits) once they have coverage. The Departments received comments in response to the ICR and they have been addressed in the Appendix.
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 26, 2016.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 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 assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) does not require retailers to implement retailer training programs. However, the statute does provide for lesser civil money penalties for violations of access, advertising, and promotion restrictions of regulations issued under section 906(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 387f(d)), as amended by the Tobacco Control Act, for retailers who have implemented a training program that complies with standards developed by FDA for such programs. FDA intends to issue regulations establishing standards for approved retailer training programs. In the interim, the guidance is intended to assist tobacco retailers in implementing effective training programs for employees.
The guidance discusses the elements that should be covered in a training program, such as: (1) Federal laws restricting the access to, and the advertising and promotion of, cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products; (2) the health and economic effects of tobacco use, especially when the tobacco use begins at a young age; (3) written company policies against sales to minors; (4) identification of the tobacco products sold in the retail establishment that are subject to the Federal laws prohibiting their sale to persons under the age of 18; (5) age verification methods; (6) practical guidelines for refusing sales; and (7) testing to ensure that employees have the required knowledge. The guidance recommends that retailers require current and new employees to take a written test prior to selling tobacco products and that refresher training be provided at least annually and more frequently as needed. The guidance recommends that retailers maintain certain written records documenting that all individual employees have been trained and that retailers retain these records for 4 years in order to be able to provide evidence of a training program during the 48-month time period covered by the civil money penalty schedules in section 103(q)(2)(A) of the Tobacco Control Act.
The guidance also recommends that retailers implement certain hiring and management practices as part of an effective retailer training program. The guidance suggests that applicants and current employees be notified both verbally and in writing of the importance of complying with laws prohibiting the sales of tobacco products to persons under the age of 18 and that they should be required to sign an acknowledgement stating that they have read and understand the information. In addition, FDA recommends that retailers implement an internal compliance check program and document the procedures and corrective actions for the program.
FDA's estimate of the number of respondents in tables 1 and 2 of this document is based on data reported to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). According to the fiscal year 2009 Annual Synar Report, there are 372,677 total retail tobacco outlets in the 50 States, District of Columbia, and 8 U.S. territories that are accessible to youth (meaning that there is no State law restricting access to these outlets to individuals older than age 18). Inflating this number by about 10 percent to account for outlets in States that sell tobacco but are, by law, inaccessible to minors results in an estimated total number of tobacco outlets of 410,000. We assume that 75 percent of tobacco retailers already have some sort of training program for age and identification verification. We expect that some of those retailer training programs already meet the elements in the guidance, some retailers would update their training program to meet the elements in the guidance, and other retailers would develop a training program for the first time. Thus, we estimate that two-thirds of tobacco retailers would develop a training program that meets the elements in the guidance (66 percent of 410,000 = 270,600).
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; renewal of advisory committee.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the renewal of the Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has determined that it is in the public interest to renew the Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee for an additional 2 years beyond the charter expiration date. The new charter will be in effect until March 3, 2018.
Authority for the Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee will expire on March 3, 2018, unless the Commissioner formally determines that renewal is in the public interest.
Cindy Hong, Division of Advisory Committee and Consultant Management, Office of Executive Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, email:
Under 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by the Department of Health and Human Services under 45 CFR part 11 and by the General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the renewal of the Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee. The Committee is a discretionary Federal advisory committee established to provide advice to the Commissioner.
The Committee advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging responsibilities as they relate to helping to ensure safe and effective drugs for human use and, as required, any other product for which the Food and Drug Administration has regulatory responsibility.
The Committee reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of gastrointestinal diseases and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner.
The Committee shall consist of a core of 11 voting members including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the fields of gastroenterology, endocrinology, surgery, clinical pharmacology, physiology, pathology, liver function, motility, esophagitis, and statistics. Almost all non-Federal members of this committee serve as Special Government Employees. The core of voting members may include one technically qualified member, selected by the Commissioner or designee, who is identified with consumer interests and is recommended by either a consortium of consumer-oriented organizations or other interested persons. In addition to the voting members, the Committee may include one non-voting member who is identified with industry interests.
Further information regarding the most recent charter and other information can be found at
This document is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory committees, please visit us at
Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments or request more information on the proposed project contact: Dr. Dale P. Sandler, Chief, Epidemiology Branch, NIEHS, Rall Building A3-05, P.O. Box 12233, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, or call non-toll free number (919)-541-4668 or Email your request, including your address to:
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 16,350.
Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Rohan Hazra, M.D.,
Anyone can access NICHD DASH to browse and view descriptive information about the studies and data archived in NICHD DASH without creating an account. Users who wish to submit or request research study data must register for an account.
Information will be collected from those wishing to create an account, sufficient to identify them as unique Users. Those submitting or requesting data will be required to provide additional supporting information to ensure proper use and security of NICHD DASH data. The information collected is limited to the essential data required to ensure that the management of Users in NICHD DASH is efficient and the sharing of data among investigators is effective. The primary uses of the information collected from Users by NICHD will be to:
• Communicate with the Users with regards to their data submission or requests
• Monitor data submissions and data requests
• Notify interested recipients of updates to data stored in NICHD DASH
• Help NICHD understand the use of NICHD DASH data by the research community
There is no plan to publish the data collected under this request.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 142.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Institute Board of Scientific Advisors. The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will also be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting Web site (
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit. Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
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.
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.
The notice announces a meeting to peer review the draft NTP monograph on immunotoxicity associated with exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) or perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). The Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program (DNTP), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), prepared the draft NTP monograph. The peer review meeting is open to the public. Registration is requested for both public attendance and oral comment and required to access the webcast. Information about the meeting and registration are available at
Meeting: July 19, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to approximately 2:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
Document Availability: The draft NTP monograph should be available by June
Written Public Comment Submission: Deadline is July 5, 2016.
Registration for Oral Comments: Deadline is July 12, 2016.
Registration for Meeting and/or to View Webcast: Deadline is July 19, 2016. Registration to view the meeting via the webcast is required.
Meeting Location: Rodbell Auditorium, Rall Building, NIEHS, 111 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
Dr. Yun Xie, NTP Designated Federal Official, Office of Liaison, Policy, and Review, DNTP, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, MD K2-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Phone: (919) 541-3436, Fax: (301) 451-5455, Email:
NTP has conducted a systematic review of the evidence for an association between exposure to PFOA or PFOS and immunotoxicity or immune-related health effects. The NTP evaluation concept for immunotoxicity associated with exposure to PFOA or PFOS was presented and discussed at the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) meeting on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 62640). The NTP evaluation concept, related presentation, and BSC meeting minutes are available at
Registration to attend the meeting in-person or to view the webcast is by July 19, 2016, at
The preliminary agenda and draft NTP monograph should be posted on the NTP Web site (
Public comment at this meeting is welcome, with time set aside for the presentation of oral comments on the draft NTP monograph. Guidance for oral public comments is available at
Persons wishing to make an oral presentation are asked to register online at
OMB approval is requested for 2 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 350.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security 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: Application for Identification Card (CBP Form 3078). This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments should be received on or before March 28, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security 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: Declaration for Free Entry of Unaccompanied Articles (Form 3299). CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments should be received on or before April 26, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments may be mailed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). The comments should address: (a) Whether the 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 estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document, CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Privacy Act system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security proposes to establish a new Department of Homeland Security system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security/ALL-038 Insider Threat Program system of records.” This system allows the Department of Homeland Security to manage insider threat inquiries, investigations, and other activities associated with complaints, inquiries, and investigations regarding the unauthorized disclosure of classified national security information; identification of potential threats to Department of Homeland Security resources and information assets; tracking of referrals of potential insider threats to internal and external partners; and providing statistical reports and meeting other insider threat reporting requirements. Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act elsewhere in this
Submit comments on or before March 28, 2016. This new system will be effective March 28, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2015-0049 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions, please contact: Karen L. Neuman, (202) 343-1717, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528-0655.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled “DHS/ALL-038 Insider Threat Program system of records.”
The Department of Homeland Security has created a Department-wide system, known as the Insider Threat Program system of records to manage insider threat matters within DHS. The Insider Threat Program was mandated by E.O. 13587, “Structural Reforms to Improve the Security of Classified Networks and the Responsible Sharing
Consistent with DHS' information sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/ALL-038 Insider Threat Program system of records may be shared with other DHS components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS may share information with appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.
Additionally, DHS is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act elsewhere in this
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which federal government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals when systems of records maintain information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors.
Below is the description of DHS/ALL-038 Insider Threat Program system of records.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/ALL-038 Insider Threat Program System of Records
DHS/ALL-038 Insider Threat Program.
Unclassified, sensitive, for official use only, and classified.
Records are maintained at several DHS Headquarters and Component locations in Washington, DC and field offices.
• DHS current or former employees, contractors, or detailees who have access or had access to national security information, including classified information.
• Other individuals, including Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial government personnel and private-sector individuals, who are authorized by DHS to access Departmental facilities, communications security equipment, and/or information technology systems that process sensitive or classified national security information.
• Any other individual with access to national security information including classified information, who accesses or attempts to access DHS IT systems, DHS national security information, or DHS facilities.
• Family members, dependents, relatives, and individuals with a personal association to an individual who is the subject of an insider threat investigation; and
• Witnesses and other individuals who provide statements or information to DHS related to an insider threat inquiry.
Categories of Records in the system include:
Information related to lawful DHS security investigations, including authorized physical, personnel, and communications security investigations, information systems security analysis and reporting, and information derived from Standard Form 86 questionnaires, including:
• Individual's name;
• Date and place of birth;
• Social Security number;
• Address;
• Publicly available social media account information;
• Personal and official email addresses;
• Citizenship;
• Personal and official phone numbers;
• Driver's license numbers;
• Vehicle identification numbers;
• License plate numbers;
• Ethnicity and race;
• Work history;
• Educational history;
• Information on family members, dependents, relatives, and other personal associations;
• Passport numbers;
• Gender;
• Hair and eye color;
• Biometric data;
• Other physical or distinguishing attributes of an individual;
• Medical reports;
• Access control pass, credential number, or other identifying number; and
• Photographic images, videotapes, voiceprints, or DVDs;
Records relating to the management and operation of DHS personnel security program, including but not limited to:
• Completed standard form questionnaires issued by the Office of Personnel Management;
• Background investigative reports and supporting documentation, including criminal background, medical, and financial data;
• Other information related to an individual's eligibility for access to classified information;
• Criminal history records;
• Polygraph examination results;
• Logs of computer activities on all DHS IT systems or any IT systems accessed by DHS personnel with security clearances;
• Nondisclosure agreements;
• Document control registries;
• Courier authorization requests;
• Derivative classification unique identifiers;
• Requests for access to sensitive compartmented information (SCI);
• Records reflecting personal and official foreign travel;
• Facility access records;
• Records of contacts with foreign persons;
• Briefing/debriefing statements for special programs, sensitive positions, and other related information and documents required in connection with personnel security clearance determinations;
Reports of investigation regarding security violations, including but not limited to:
• Individual statements or affidavits and correspondence;
• Incident reports;
• Drug test results;
• Investigative records of a criminal, civil, or administrative nature;
• Letters, emails, memoranda, and reports;
• Exhibits, evidence, statements, and affidavits;
• Inquiries relating to suspected security violations; and
• Recommended remedial actions for possible security violations;
Any information related to the management and operation of the DHS insider threat program, including but not limited to:
• Documentation pertaining to investigative or analytical efforts by DHS insider threat program personnel to identify threats to DHS personnel, property, facilities, and information;
• Records collated to examine information technology events and other information that could reveal potential insider threat activities;
• Travel records;
• Intelligence reports and database query results relating to individuals covered by this system;
• Information obtained from the Intelligence Community, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), or from other agencies or organizations about individuals known or reasonably suspected of being engaged in conduct constituting, preparing for, aiding, or relating to an insider threat, including but not limited to espionage or unauthorized disclosures of classified national security information;
• Information provided by record subjects and individual members of the public; and
• Information provided by individuals who report known or suspected insider threats.
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-458; Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2010, Pub. L. 111-259; Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 60 Stat. 755, August 1, 1946; Title 6 U.S.C. 341(a)(6), Under Secretary for Management; Title 28 U.S.C. 535, Investigation of Crimes Involving Government Officers and Employees; Limitations; Title 40 U.S.C. 1315, Law enforcement authority of Secretary of Homeland Security for protection of public property; Title 50 U.S.C. 3381, Coordination of Counterintelligence Activities; E.O. 10450, Security Requirements for Government Employment, April 17, 1953; E.O. 12333, United States Intelligence Activities (as amended); E.O. 12829, National Industrial Security Program; E.O. 12968, Access to Classified Information, August 2, 1995; E.O. 13467, Reforming Processes Related to Suitability for Government Employment, Fitness for Contractor Employees, and Eligibility for Access to Classified National Security Information, June 30, 2008; E.O. 13488, Granting Reciprocity on Excepted Service and Federal Contractor Employee Fitness and Reinvestigating Individuals in Positions of Public Trust, January 16, 2009; E.O. 13526, Classified National Security Information; E.O. 13,549, Classified National Security Information Programs for State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Entities, August 18, 2010; E.O. 13587, Structural Reforms to Improve the Security of Classified Networks and the Responsible Sharing and Safeguarding of Classified Information, October 7, 2011; and Presidential Memorandum National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs, November 21, 2012.
The purpose of the Insider Threat Program system of records is to manage insider threat matters; facilitate insider threat investigations and activities associated with counterintelligence and counterespionage complaints, inquiries, and investigations; identify threats to DHS resources and information assets; track referrals of potential insider threats to internal and external partners; and provide statistical reports and meet other insider threat reporting requirements.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including Offices of the U.S. Attorneys, or other federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. DHS or any component thereof;
2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his or her official capacity;
3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his or her individual capacity when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof.
B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or General Services Administration (GSA) pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
1. DHS suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;
2. DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of identity theft or fraud, harm to economic or property interests, harm to an individual, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by DHS or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and
3. The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS' efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on
G. To an appropriate Federal, State, tribal, territorial, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, when a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure.
H. To an appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international agency, if the information is relevant and necessary to a requesting agency's decision concerning the hiring or retention of an individual, or issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant, delegation or designation of authority, or other benefit, or if the information is relevant and necessary to a DHS decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, delegation or designation of authority, or other benefit and disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the person making the request.
I. To an individual's prospective or current employer to the extent necessary to determine employment eligibility.
J. To third parties during the course of an investigation to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation, provided disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the individual making the disclosure.
K. To a public or professional licensing organization when such information indicates, either by itself or in combination with other information, a violation or potential violation of professional standards, or reflects on the moral, educational, or professional qualifications of an individual who is licensed or who is seeking to become licensed.
L. To another federal agency in order to conduct or support authorized counterintelligence activities, as defined by 50 U.S.C. 3003(3).
M. To any Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or multinational government or agency, or appropriate private sector individuals and organizations lawfully engaged in national security or homeland defense for that entity's official responsibilities, including responsibilities to counter, deter, prevent, prepare for, respond to, threats to national or homeland security, including an act of terrorism or espionage.
N. To a Federal, State, local, tribal, or territorial government or agency lawfully engaged in the collection of intelligence (including national intelligence, foreign intelligence, and counterintelligence), counterterrorism, homeland security, law enforcement or law enforcement intelligence, and other information, when disclosure is undertaken for intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, or related law enforcement purposes, as authorized by U.S. law or E.O.
O. To any individual, organization, or entity, as appropriate, to notify them of a serious threat to homeland security for the purpose of guarding them against or responding to such a threat, or when there is a reason to believe that the recipient is or could become the target of a particular threat, to the extent the information is relevant to the protection of life, health, or property.
P. To members of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee pursuant to a written request under 5 U.S.C. 2954, after consultation with the Chief Privacy Officer and the General Counsel.
Q. To individual members the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in connection with the exercise of the Committees' oversight and legislative functions, when such disclosures are necessary to a lawful activity of the United States, after consultation with the Chief Privacy Officer and the General Counsel.
R. To a Federal agency or entity that has information relevant to an allegation or investigation regarding an insider threat for purposes of obtaining guidance, additional information, or advice from such federal agency or entity regarding the handling of an insider threat matter, or to a federal agency or entity that was consulted during the processing of the allegation or investigation but that did not ultimately have relevant information.
S. To a former DHS employee, DHS contractor, or individual sponsored by DHS for a security clearance for purposes of responding to an official inquiry by Federal, State, local, tribal, or territorial government agencies or professional licensing authorities; or facilitating communications with a former employee that may be relevant and necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes when DHS requires information or consultation assistance from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility.
T. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS, or when disclosure is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS' officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent the Chief Privacy Officer determines that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
None.
DHS/ALL-038 Insider Threat Program system of records stores records in this system electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records may be stored on magnetic disc, tape, and digital media.
DHS may retrieve records by first and last name, Social Security number, date of birth, phone number, other unique individual identifiers, and other types of information by key word search.
DHS safeguards records in this system according to applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. DHS has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
DHS is working with NARA to develop the appropriate retention schedule based on the information below. For persons DHS determines to be insider threats, information in the Insider Threat Program system of records that is related to a particular insider threat is maintained for twenty-five years from the date when the
Chief, Insider Threat Operations Center (202-447-5010), Office of the Chief Security Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.
The Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system from the notification, access, and amendment procedures of the Privacy Act because it is a law enforcement system. However, DHS will consider individual requests to determine whether or not information may be released. Thus, individuals seeking notification of and access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the Chief Privacy Officer whose contact information can be found at
When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer,
• Explain why you believe the Department would have information on you;
• Identify which component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you;
• Specify when you believe the records would have been created; and
• Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS component agency may have responsive records.
• If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his/her records.
Without the above information, the component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
See “Notification procedure” above.
See “Notification procedure” above.
Records are obtained from Department officials, employees, contractors, and other individuals who are associated with or represent DHS; officials from other foreign, Federal, tribal, State, and local government organizations; non-government, commercial, public, and private agencies and organizations; relevant DHS records, databases, and files, including personnel security files, facility access records, security incidents or violation files, network security records, investigatory records, visitor records, travel records, foreign visitor or contact reports, and financial disclosure reports; media, including periodicals, newspapers, and broadcast transcripts; intelligence source documents; publicly available information, including publicly available social media; and complainants, informants, suspects, and witnesses.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8), (e)(12); (f); (g)(1); and (h). Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(5), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I); and (f).
When this system receives a record from another system exempted in that source system under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), DHS will claim the same exemptions for those records that are claimed for the original primary systems of records from which they originated and claims any additional exemptions set forth here.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
Notice of availability.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is providing notice that it has issued an annual summary of all enforcement actions taken by TSA under the authority granted in the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.
Emily Su, Assistant Chief Counsel, Civil Enforcement, Office of the Chief Counsel, TSA-2, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002; telephone (571) 227-2305; facsimile (571) 227-1378; email
On August 3, 2007, section 1302(a) of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (the 9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53, 121 Stat. 392, gave TSA new authority to assess civil penalties for violations of any surface transportation requirements under title 49 of the U.S. Code (U.S.C.) and for any violations of chapter 701 of title 46 of the U.S. Code, which governs transportation worker identification credentials (TWICs).
Section 1302(a) of the 9/11 Act, codified at 49 U.S.C. 114(v), authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to impose civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation of any surface transportation requirement under 49 U.S.C. or any requirement related to TWICs under 46 U.S.C. chapter 701. TSA exercises this function under delegated authority from
Under 49 U.S.C. 114(v)(7)(A), TSA is required to provide the public with an annual summary of all enforcement actions taken by TSA under this subsection; and include in each such summary the identifying information of each enforcement action, the type of alleged violation, the penalty or penalties proposed, and the final assessment amount of each penalty. This summary is for calendar year 2015. TSA will publish a summary of all enforcement actions taken under the statute in January to cover the previous calendar year.
You can get an electronic copy of both this notice and the enforcement actions summary on the Internet by—
(1) Searching the electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web page at
(2) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at
In addition, copies are available by writing or calling the individual in the
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 114(v)(7)(A), TSA provides the following summary of enforcement actions taken by TSA in calendar year 2015 under section 114(v).
Section 114(v) of title 49 of the U.S. Code gave the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) new authority to assess civil penalties for violations of any surface transportation requirements under 49 U.S.C. and for any violations of chapter 701 of title 46 of the U.S. Code, which governs transportation worker identification credentials (TWICs). Specifically, section 114(v) authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to impose civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation of any surface transportation requirement under title 49 U.S.C. or any requirement related to TWICs under 46 U.S.C. chapter 701.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free title V information line at 800-927-7588.
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; announcement of meeting; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) that has been prepared to evaluate the Ballville Dam Project, in Sandusky County, Ohio, in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We are also announcing a public meeting and requesting public comments.
•
•
•
Brian Elkington, (612) 713-5168. Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8337 for TTY assistance.
We announce the availability of a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) that has been prepared to evaluate the Ballville Dam Project, in Sandusky County, Ohio, in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We are also announcing a public meeting and requesting public comments.
Ballville Dam was built in 1913 for hydroelectric power generation. The City of Fremont purchased the dam in 1959 from the Ohio Power Company for the purpose of supplying water to the city. With the construction of a raw water reservoir, the dam is no longer required for this purpose. Moreover, in 2007, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources issued a Notice of Violation to the City, stating that the dam was being operated in violation of the law as a result of its deteriorated condition.
Ballville Dam is currently a complete barrier to upstream fish passage and impedes hydrologic processes. The purpose for the issuance of Federal funds and preparation of this Draft SEIS is to remove Ballville Dam and restore natural hydrological processes over a 40-mile stretch of the Sandusky River, reopen fish passage to 22 miles of additional habitat, restore flow conditions for fish access to habitat above the impoundment, and improve overall conditions for native fish communities in the Sandusky River system, restoring self-sustaining fish resources.
We published a final EIS in the
This draft SEIS provides further discussion of the potential significant impacts of the proposed action and an analysis of reasonable alternatives to the
In addition to this notice of the draft SEIS, EPA is publishing a
Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and to private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have interest in this proposal. To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties.
We request data, comments, new information, or suggestions from the public, concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, tribes, industry, or any other interested party on this notice. We specifically request comments regarding the additional information and analyses presented in the draft SEIS.
You may submit your comments and materials considering this notice by one of the methods listed in the
All comments and materials we receive in response to this request will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
This notice is being furnished as provided for by NEPA and its implementing Regulations (40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22). The intent of the notice is to obtain suggestions and additional information from other agencies and the public on the draft SEIS. Comments and participation in this process are solicited.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.
Notice of a renewal of a currently approved information collection (1028-0060).
We (the U.S. Geological Survey) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. This collection consists of 1 form. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This collection is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2016.
To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive them on or before April 26, 2016.
You may submit comments on this information collection to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 807, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); (703) 648-7197 (fax); or
Shonta E. Osborne, National Minerals Information Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 985, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); 703-648-7960 (phone); or
Respondents to this form supply the USGS with domestic production, exploration, and mine development data for nonfuel mineral commodities. This information will be published as an Annual Report for use by Government agencies, industry, education programs, and the general public.
We are soliciting comments as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has submitted an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to continue the collection of information that enables the BLM to monitor compliance with timber export restrictions. The OMB previously approved this information collection activity and assigned it control number 1004-0058.
The OMB is required to respond to this information collection request within 60 days but may respond after 30 days. For maximum consideration, written comments should be received on or before March 28, 2016.
Please submit comments directly to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (OMB #1004-0058), Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, fax 202-395-5806, or by electronic mail at
Please indicate “Attn: 1004-0058” regardless of the form of your comments.
Michael Bechdolt, at 202-912-7234. Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339, to leave a message for Mr. Bechdolt. You may also review the information collection request online at
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) and OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 provide that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond. In order to obtain and renew an OMB control number, Federal agencies are required to seek public comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d) and 1320.12(a)).
As required at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), the BLM published a 60-day notice in the
1. Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper functioning of the BLM, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. The accuracy of the BLM's estimate of the burden of collecting the information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. The quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. How to minimize the information collection burden on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology.
Please send comments as directed under
• 5450-17, Export Determination; and
• 5460-17, Substitution Determination.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) invites public comments on, and plans to request approval to continue, the collection of information that assists the BLM in preventing unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands by operations authorized by the mining laws, and in obtaining financial guarantees for the reclamation of public lands. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has assigned control number 1004-0194 to this information collection.
Please submit comments on the proposed information collection by April 26, 2016.
Comments may be submitted by mail, fax, or electronic mail.
Please indicate “Attn: 1004-0194” regardless of the form of your comments.
Adam Merrill, at 202-912-7044. Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339, to leave a message for Mr. Merrill.
OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, require that interested members of the public and affected agencies be given an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d) and 1320.12(a)). This notice identifies an information collection that the BLM plans to submit to OMB for approval. The Paperwork Reduction Act provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.
The BLM will request a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity. Comments are invited on: (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany our submission of the information collection requests to OMB.
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.
• Form 3809-1, Surface Management Surety Bond;
• Form 3809-2, Surface Management Personal Bond;
• Form 3809-4, Bond Rider Extending Coverage of Bond to Assume Liabilities for Operations Conducted by Parties Other Than the Principal;
• Form 3809-5, Notification of Change of Operator and Assumption of Past Liability.
The estimated burdens are itemized in the following table:
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of Availability.
In accordance with 36 CFR 9.17, the National Park Service (NPS) is hereby giving notice that Kris DeVault has filed a proposed plan to conduct mining operations on the Liberty #9 and Liberty #13 through #18 unpatented placer claims near Kantishna, Alaska. The claims are located within Denali National Park and Preserve.
This plan of operations is available for inspection during normal business hours at the following locations:
Office of the Superintendent, Denali National Park and Preserve—Headquarters, Mile post 3.4 Denali Park Road, P.O. Box 9, Denali Park, AK 99755.
National Park Service Alaska Regional Office—Natural Resources Division, 240 West 5th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99501.
Donald Striker, Superintendent, at (907) 683-9625,
The regulations at 36 CFR part 9, subpart A, implement 54 U.S.C. 100731-737, which was originally enacted as the Mining in the Parks Act. These regulations are applicable to all mineral activities in park units related to unpatented and patented mining claims under the Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21
Kris DeVault, the operator of the Liberty #9 and Liberty #13 through #18 unpatented placer claims near Kantishna, Alaska, has submitted a proposed plan of operations. The Regional Director is currently evaluating the proposed plan under the standards of 36 CFR 9.10. If the plan meets the standards, the NPS may approve the plan as submitted or approve the plan with terms and conditions. Under 36 CFR 9.17(a), the NPS is required to publish this notice in the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Notice of availability and announcement of public meetings and comment period for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
BOEM is announcing the availability of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas Central Planning Area (CPA) Lease Sale 247 (CPA Lease Sale 247). CPA Lease Sale 247 is tentatively scheduled for March 2017. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement provides a discussion of potential significant impacts of the proposed action and provides an analysis of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. It also considers new information made available since the completion of earlier EISs related to CPA Lease Sale 247. The prior 2012-2017 Gulf of Mexico EISs are available on BOEM's Web site at
In keeping with the Department of the Interior's mission to protect natural resources and to limit costs, while ensuring availability to the public, the Draft Supplemental EIS and associated information are available on BOEM's Web site at
Comments should be submitted no later than April 11, 2016. As described below in the “Comments” section, public comments may also be submitted at public meetings being held on March 14, 15, and 17, 2016.
Mr. Gary D. Goeke, Chief, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Office of Environment (GM 623E), 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394, or by email at
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
2. U.S. mail in an envelope labeled “Comments on the Draft CPA 247 Supplemental EIS” and addressed to Mr. Gary D. Goeke, Chief, Environmental Assessment Section, Office of Environment (GM 623E), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Office of Environment (GM 623E), 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394. Comments must be postmarked by the last day of the comment period to be considered. This date is April 11, 2016.
3. Via electronic mail to
BOEM will also hold public meetings to solicit comments regarding the CPA 247 Draft Supplemental EIS. The Meetings are scheduled as follows:
• Gulfport, Mississippi: Monday, March 14, 2016, Courtyard by Marriott, Gulfport Beachfront MS Hotel, 1600 East Beach Boulevard, Gulfport, Mississippi 39501, one meeting beginning at 6:00 p.m. CDT;
• Mobile, Alabama: Tuesday, March 15, 2016, Hilton Garden Inn Mobile West, 828 West I-65 Service Road South, Mobile, Alabama 36609, one meeting beginning at 4:00 p.m. CDT; and
• New Orleans, Louisiana: Thursday, March 17, 2016, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123, one meeting beginning at 1:00 p.m. CDT.
BOEM does not consider anonymous comments; please include your name and address as part of your submittal. 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 comments to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
This Notice of Availability is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4231
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), instituted these investigations effective January 21, 2015, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania); Domtar Corporation (Ft. Mill, South Carolina); Finch Paper LLC (Glen Falls, New York); P.H. Glatfelter Company (York, Pennsylvania); and Packaging Corporation of America (Lake Forest, Illinois). The Commission scheduled the final phase of the investigations following notification of a preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of certain uncoated paper from Australia, Brazil, China, Indonesia, and Portugal were dumped within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)) and were subsidized by the governments of China and Indonesia within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on February 22, 2016. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4592 (February 2016), entitled
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on January 28, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
On September 15, 2004, ASME filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 19, 2015. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on December 21, 2015, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME; Patcore Inc., Tokyo, JAPAN; and H. Lundbeck A/S, Valby, DENMARK, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Pistoia Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 9, 2015. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 14, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Verday, LLC, St. Louis, MO; Advanced Energy Centre, Toronto, CANADA; National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), Morgantown, WV; and Power Generation Services, Inc., Raleigh, NC, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and MSGIP 2.0 intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On February 5, 2013, MSGIP 2.0 filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on September 25, 2015. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 11, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards and development organization is: American Academy of Forensic Sciences Standards Board, LLC, Colorado Springs, CO. The nature and scope of ASB's standards development activities are: activities that develop, review, and approve and issue voluntary consensus standards, technical reports and best practice guidelines in the field of forensic sciences, and to adjudicate appeals relating to the development and administration of such standards.
Notice is hereby given that, on January 20, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and HSA Foundation intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On August 31, 2012, HSA Foundation filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on August 7, 2015. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on February 1, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Zhuzhou CSR Times Electric Co., Ltd., ZhuZhou City, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Ecava Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA; Jain Technology Co., Ltd., Seoul, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; MicroControl GmbH & Co., Troisdorf, GERMANY; JVL Industri Elektronik A/S, Birkerod, DENMARK; and SABO Elektronik GmbH, Schwerte, GERMANY, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and ODVA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 21, 1995, ODVA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 30, 2015. A notice was published in the
Department of Justice.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting. request for public comment.
The National Commission on Forensic Science will hold meeting nine at the time and location listed below.
(1) Public Hearing.—The meeting will be held on March 21, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and March 22, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
(2) Written Public Comment.—Written public comment regarding National Commission on Forensic Science meeting materials can be submitted through
Andrew J. Bruck, Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General and Designated Federal Official, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530, by email at
Office of Justice Program, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until April 26, 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 Brecht Donoghue, (202) 305-1270, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531.
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., Suite 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) of the Department of Labor (Department or DOL) is issuing this Notice to announce
This notice is effective on February 26, 2016.
William W. Thompson, II, Acting Administrator, Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC), U.S. Department of Labor, Ste. 12-200, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: 202-513-7350 (this is not a toll-free number).
The United States (U.S.) Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) of the Department of Homeland Security will not approve an employer's petition for the admission of H-2A or H-2B nonimmigrant temporary workers in the U.S. unless the petitioner has received from the DOL an H-2A or H-2B labor certification. Both the H-2A and H-2B labor certifications provide that: (1) There are not sufficient U.S. workers who are qualified and who will be available to perform the labor or services involved in the petition; and (2) the employment of the foreign worker(s) in such labor or services will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the U.S. similarly employed.
Among the minimum benefits and working conditions that the Department requires employers to offer their U.S. and H-2A workers who are not engaged in range occupations are three meals a day or free and convenient cooking and kitchen facilities so workers may prepare their own meals.
The Department establishes the methodology for determining the maximum amounts that H-2A agricultural employers may charge their U.S. and foreign workers for providing them with three meals per day during employment. 20 CFR 655.173(a). This methodology allows for annual adjustments of the previous year's maximum allowable charge based upon updated Consumer Price Index (CPI) data.
The percentage change in the CPI-U for Food between December 2014 and December 2015 was 1.9 percent. Accordingly, the maximum allowable charge under 20 CFR 655.122(g) shall be no more than $12.09 per day, unless the OFLC Certifying Officer approves a higher charge as authorized under 20 CFR 655.173(b).
The H-2A regulations (20 CFR 655.122(h)(1)) and the H-2B regulations (20 CFR 655.20(j)(1)(i)) establish that the minimum daily travel subsistence expense for meals, for which a worker is entitled to reimbursement, must be at least as much as the employer would charge for providing the worker with three meals a day during employment (if applicable). The minimum daily travel subsistence expense for meals may in no event be less than the amount permitted under § 655.173(a),
The Department bases the maximum meals component of the daily travel subsistence expense on the standard minimum Continental United States (CONUS) per diem rate as established by the General Services Administration (GSA) at 41 CFR part 301, formerly published in Appendix A, and now found at
The term “subsistence” includes both meals and lodging during travel to and from the worksite. Therefore, an H-2A employer is responsible for providing (either paying in advance or reimbursing a worker) the reasonable costs of transportation and daily subsistence between the employer's worksite and the place from which the worker comes to work for the employer, if the worker completes 50 percent of the work contract period, and upon the worker completing the contract or being dismissed without cause, return costs. Similarly, an H-2B employer is responsible for providing (either paying in advance or reimbursing a worker) the reasonable costs of transportation and daily subsistence between the employer's worksite and the place from which the worker comes to work for the employer, if the worker completes 50 percent of the job order period of employment, and upon the worker completing the job order period of employment or being dismissed early, return costs. In those instances where a worker must travel to obtain a visa so that the worker may enter the U.S. to come to work for the employer, the employer must pay for the transportation and daily subsistence costs of that part of the travel as well.
Employers are required to assume responsibility for the reasonable costs associated with the worker's travel, including transportation, food, and, in those instances where it is necessary, lodging. The minimum and maximum daily travel meal reimbursement amounts are established above. If transportation and lodging are not provided by the employer, the amount an employer must pay for transportation and, where required, lodging, must be no less than (and is not required to be more than) the most economical and reasonable costs. The employer is responsible for those costs necessary for the worker to travel to the worksite if the worker completes 50 percent of the work contract period, but is not responsible for unauthorized detours, and if the worker completes the contract or is dismissed as described above, return transportation and subsistence costs, including lodging costs where necessary. This policy applies equally to instances where the worker is traveling within the U.S. to the employer's worksite.
For further information on when the employer is responsible for lodging costs, please see the Department's H-2A Frequently Asked Questions on Travel and Daily Subsistence, which may found on the OFLC Web site:
Signed in Washington, DC.
Office of the Secretary, DOL
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Summary of Benefits and Coverage and Uniform Glossary Required Under the Affordable Care Act,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 28, 2016.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-EBSA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks OMB approval of a revision to the Summary of Benefits and Coverage and Uniform Glossary (SBC) ICR codified in regulations 29 CFR 715-2715. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. 111-148, was signed into law on March 23, 2010, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-152, was signed into law on March 30, 2010 (collectively known as the “Affordable Care Act”). The Affordable Care Act amends the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) by adding section 2715 “Development and Utilization of Uniform Explanation of Coverage Documents and Standardized Definitions.” This section directs the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the DOL, and the Department of the Treasury (collectively, the Departments), in consultation with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and a working group comprised of stakeholders to develop standards for use by a group health plan and a health insurance issuer in compiling and providing to applicants, enrollees, policyholders, and certificate holders a SBC explanation that accurately describes the benefits and coverage under the applicable plan or coverage.
A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was published on August 22, 2011 (76 FR 52442) with an accompanying document (76 FR 52475) containing the templates, instructions, and related materials for implementing the disclosure provisions under PHS Act 2715. The NPRM proposed 29 CFR 2590.715-2715. A final rule was published on February 14, 2012. A second notice of proposed rulemaking was published on December 30, 2014 (79 FR 78577) to propose revisions to the regulation as well as the templates, instructions, and related materials. On March 30, 2015, the Departments released an FAQ stating that the Departments intend to finalize changes to the regulations in the near future but intend to utilize consumer testing and offer an opportunity for the public, including the NAIC, to provide further input before finalizing revisions to the SBC template and associated documents. A final rule, without final revisions to the SBC template and associated documents, was published on June 16, 2015 (80 FR 34292).
As required by section 2715, the Departments consulted the NAIC to provide further input before finalizing revisions to the SBC template and associated documents. The Departments now are finalizing the templates and glossary and requesting a three-year approval from the Office of Management and Budget for the revised information collection, so that plans and issuers may begin using the revised forms for making the disclosures under PHS Act section 2715 and the implementing regulations.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• 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;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; 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,
Section 2a of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) provides for payments of age and service, disability, and supplemental annuities to qualified employees. An annuity cannot be paid until the employee stops working for a railroad employer. In addition, the age and service employee must relinquish any rights held to such jobs. A disabled employee does not need to relinquish employee rights until attaining Full Retirement Age, or if earlier, when their spouse is awarded a spouse annuity. Benefits become payable after the employee meets certain other requirements, which depend on the type of annuity payable. The requirements for obtaining the annuities are prescribed in 20 CFR 216 and 220.
To collect the information needed to help determine an applicant's entitlement to, and the amount of, an employee retirement annuity the RRB uses Forms AA-1,
The AA-1 application process obtains information from an applicant about their marital history, work history, military service, benefits from other governmental agencies, railroad pensions and Medicare entitlement for either an age and service or disability annuity. An RRB representative interviews the applicant either at a field office, an itinerant point, or by telephone. During the interview, the RRB representative enters the information obtained into an on-line information system. Upon completion of the interview, the on-line information system generates Form AA-1cert,
Form AA-1d,
The RRB proposes the following changes to information collection 3220-0002:
Form AA-1 is being revised to make non-burden impacting editorial and formatting changes that include the deletion of an obsolete item. In addition, changes are proposed to Form AA-1 in support of the RRB's Disability Program Improvement Project (DPIP) to enhance/improve disability case processing and overall program integrity as recommended by the RRB's Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office. Proposed revisions to Form AA-1 include the addition of questions regarding whether a disability applicant is relinquishing seniority rights and why. Comparable revisions to electronic equivalent forms (AA-1cert and AA-1sum) are also being proposed.
Significant changes are proposed to Form AA-1d in support of the RRB's DPIP to enhance/improve disability case processing and overall program integrity as recommended by the RRB's Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office. Proposed changes to Form AA-1d include the addition of questions regarding an applicant's daily activities, including any social and recreational activities and volunteer work; their education and training, any work performed since terminating their railroad occupation; whether an applicant used a facilitator or an attorney to either complete or aid in their completion of application. Clarification of existing items and other non-burden impacting editorial and formatting changes are also proposed.
The RRB proposes no changes to Form G-204.
One response is requested of each respondent. Completion of the forms is required to obtain/retain a benefit.
On November 18, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act
Additionally, as discussed in Section III below, the Commission is instituting proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
The Exchange is proposing a rule change to adopt generic listing standards for shares listed under BATS Rule 14.11(i) (“Managed Fund Shares”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
This Amendment No. 1 to SR-BATS-2015-100 amends and replaces in its entirety the proposal as originally submitted on November 15, 2015. The Exchange submits this Amendment No. 1 in order to clarify certain points about the proposal as well as to describe more accurately how investments in derivative securities will be treated.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 14.11(i) to adopt generic listing standards for Managed Fund Shares. Under the Exchange's current rules, a proposed rule change must be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) for the listing and trading of each new series of Managed Fund Shares. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to codify certain rules within Rule 14.11(i) that would generally eliminate the need for such proposed rule changes, which would create greater efficiency and promote uniform standards in the listing process.
Rule 14.11(i) sets forth certain rules related to the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares.
(a) Represents an interest in a registered investment company (“Investment Company”) organized as an open-end management investment company or similar entity, that invests in a portfolio of securities selected by the Investment Company's investment adviser (hereafter “Adviser”) consistent with the Investment Company's investment objectives and policies;
(b) is issued in a specified aggregate minimum number in return for a deposit of a specified portfolio of securities and/or a cash amount with a value equal to the next determined net asset value; and
(c) when aggregated in the same specified minimum number, may be redeemed at a holder's request, which holder will be paid a specified portfolio of securities and/or cash with a value equal to the next determined net asset value.
Effectively, Managed Fund Shares are securities issued by an actively-managed open-end Investment Company (
All Managed Fund Shares listed pursuant to Rule 14.11(i) are included within the definition of “security” or “securities” as such terms are used in the Rules of the Exchange and, as such, are subject to the full panoply of Exchange rules and procedures that currently govern the trading of securities on the Exchange.
In addition, Rule 14.11(i) currently provides for the criteria that Managed Fund Shares must satisfy for initial and continued listing on the Exchange, including, for example, that a minimum number of Managed Fund Shares are required to be outstanding at the time of commencement of trading on the Exchange. However, the current process for listing and trading new series of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange requires that the Exchange submit a proposed rule change with the Commission. In this regard, Rule 14.11(i)(2)(A) specifies that the Exchange will file separate proposals under Section 19(b) of the Act (hereafter, a “proposed rule change”) before the listing of Managed Fund Shares, which, in conjunction with the proposal to create generic listing standards for Managed Fund Shares, the Exchange is proposing to delete.
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 14.11(i) to specify that the Exchange may approve Managed Fund Shares for listing pursuant to SEC Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act, which pertains to derivative securities products (“SEC Rule 19b-4(e)”).
The Exchange would also specify within Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C) that components of Managed Fund Shares listed pursuant to SEC Rule 19b-4(e) must satisfy the requirements of Rule 14.11(i) on an initial and continued basis, which includes certain specific criteria that the Exchange is proposing to include within Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C), as described in greater detail below. As proposed, the Exchange would continue to file separate proposed rule changes before the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares with components
The Exchange would also amend the definition of the term “Disclosed Portfolio” under Rule 14.11(i)(3)(B) in order to require that the Web site for each series of Managed Fund Shares listed on the Exchange disclose the following information regarding the Disclosed Portfolio, to the extent applicable: ticker symbol, CUSIP or other identifier, a description of the holding, identity of the asset upon which the derivative is based, the strike price for any options, the quantity of each security or other asset held as measured by select metrics, maturity date, coupon rate, effective date, market value and percentage weight of the holding in the portfolio.
The Exchange would also add to Rule 14.11(i)(4)(A) by specifying that all Managed Fund Shares must have a stated investment objective, which must be adhered to under normal market conditions.
Finally, the Exchange would also amend the continued listing requirement in Rule 14.11(i)(4)(B) by changing the requirement that an Intraday Indicative Value for Managed Fund Shares be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the time when the Managed Fund Shares trade on the Exchange to a requirement that an Intraday Indicative Value be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during Regular Trading Hours, as defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(w).
The Exchange is proposing standards that would pertain to Managed Fund Shares to qualify for listing and trading pursuant to SEC Rule 19b-4(e). These standards would be grouped according to security or asset type. The Exchange notes that the standards proposed for a Managed Fund Share portfolio that holds equity securities, Derivative Securities Products, and Linked Securities are based in large part on the existing equity security standards applicable to Index Fund Shares in Exchange Rule 14.11(c)(3). The standards proposed for a Managed Fund Share portfolio that holds fixed income securities are based in large part on the existing fixed income security standards applicable to Index Fund Shares in Rule 14.11(c)(4). Many of the standards proposed for other types of holdings in a Managed Fund Share portfolio are based on previous proposed rule changes for specific series of Managed Fund Shares.
Proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(i) would describe the standards for a Managed Fund Share portfolio that holds equity securities, which are defined to be U.S. Component Stocks,
As proposed in Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(i)(a), the component stocks of the equity portion of a portfolio that are U.S. Component Stocks shall meet the following criteria initially and on a continuing basis:
(1) Component stocks (excluding Derivative Securities Products and Linked Securities) that in the aggregate account for at least 90% of the equity weight of the portfolio (excluding such Derivative Securities Products and Linked Securities) each must have a minimum market value of at least $75 million;
(2) Component stocks (excluding Derivative Securities Products and Linked Securities) that in the aggregate account for at least 70% of the equity weight of the portfolio (excluding such Derivative Securities Products and Linked Securities) each must have a minimum monthly trading volume of 250,000 shares, or minimum notional volume traded per month of $25,000,000, averaged over the last six months;
(3) The most heavily weighted component stock (excluding Derivative Securities Products and Linked Securities) must not exceed 30% of the equity weight of the portfolio, and, to the extent applicable, the five most heavily weighted component stocks (excluding Derivative Securities Products and Linked Securities) must
(4) Where the equity portion of the portfolio does not include Non-U.S. Component Stocks, the equity portion of the portfolio shall include a minimum of 13 component stocks; provided, however, that there would be no minimum number of component stocks if (a) one or more series of Derivative Securities Products or Linked Securities constitute, at least in part, components underlying a series of Managed Fund Shares, or (b) one or more series of Derivative Securities Products or Linked Securities account for 100% of the equity weight of the portfolio of a series of Managed Fund Shares;
(5) Except as provided in proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(i)(a), equity securities in the portfolio must be U.S. Component Stocks listed on a national securities exchange and must be NMS Stocks as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS;
(6) American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) may be exchange traded or non-exchange traded. However no more than 10% of the equity weight of the portfolio shall consist of non-exchange traded ADRs.
As proposed in Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(i)(b), the component stocks of the equity portion of a portfolio that are Non-U.S. Component Stocks shall meet the following criteria initially and on a continuing basis:
(1) Non-U.S. Component Stocks each shall have a minimum market value of at least $100 million;
(2) Non-U.S. Component Stocks each shall have a minimum global monthly trading volume of 250,000 shares, or minimum global notional volume traded per month of $25,000,000, averaged over the last six months;
(3) The most heavily weighted Non-U.S. Component Stock shall not exceed 25% of the equity weight of the portfolio, and, to the extent applicable, the five most heavily weighted Non-U.S. Component Stocks shall not exceed 60% of the equity weight of the portfolio;
(4) Where the equity portion of the portfolio includes Non-U.S. Component Stocks, the equity portion of the portfolio shall include a minimum of 20 component stocks; provided, however, that there shall be no minimum number of component stocks if (a) one or more series of Derivative Securities Products or Linked Securities constitute, at least in part, components underlying a series of Managed Fund Shares, or (b) one or more series of Derivative Securities Products or Linked Securities account for 100% of the equity weight of the portfolio of a series of Managed Fund Shares;
(5) Each Non-U.S. Component Stock shall be listed and traded on an exchange that has last-sale reporting.
The Exchange notes that, as approved by the Commission for certain Managed Fund Shares
Proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(ii) would describe the standards for a Managed Fund Share portfolio that holds fixed income securities, which are debt securities
(1) Components that in the aggregate account for at least 75% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio shall each have a minimum original principal
(2) No component fixed-income security (excluding Treasury Securities and GSE Securities) could represent more than 30% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio, and the five most heavily weighted fixed income securities in the portfolio shall not in the aggregate account for more than 65% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio;
(3) An underlying portfolio (excluding exempted securities) that includes fixed income securities shall include a minimum of 13 non-affiliated issuers, provided, however, that there shall be no minimum number of non-affiliated issuers required for fixed income securities if at least 70% of the weight of the portfolio consists of equity securities as described in Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(i);
(4) Component securities that in aggregate account for at least 90% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio must be either: (a) From issuers that are required to file reports pursuant to Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Act; (b) from issuers that have a worldwide market value of its outstanding common equity held by non-affiliates of $700 million or more; (c) from issuers that have outstanding securities that are notes, bonds, debentures, or evidence of indebtedness having a total remaining principal amount of at least $1 billion; (d) exempted securities as defined in Section 3(a)(12) of the Act; or (e) from issuers that are a government of a foreign country or a political subdivision of a foreign country; and
(5) Non-agency, non-GSE and privately-issued mortgage-related and other asset-backed securities components of a portfolio shall not account, in the aggregate, for more than 20% of the weight of the fixed income portion of the portfolio.
Proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iii) describes the standards for a Managed Fund Share portfolio that holds cash and cash equivalents.
Proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iv) describes the standards for a Managed Fund Share portfolio that holds listed derivatives, including futures, options and swaps on commodities, currencies and financial instruments (
Proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(v) describes the standards for a Managed Fund Share portfolio that holds over the counter (“OTC”) derivatives, including forwards, options and swaps on commodities, currencies and financial instruments (
Proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(vi) provides that, to the extent that listed or OTC derivatives are used to gain exposure to individual equities and/or fixed income securities, or to indexes of equities and/or fixed income securities, such equities and/or fixed income securities, as applicable, shall meet the criteria set forth in Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(i) and 14.11(i)(4)(C)(ii), respectively. The Exchange notes that, for purposes of this proposal, a portfolio's investment in OTC derivatives will be calculated as the total absolute notional value of the OTC derivatives.
The Exchange believes that the proposed standards would continue to ensure transparency surrounding the listing process for Managed Fund Shares. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed portfolio standards for listing and trading Managed Fund Shares, many of which track existing Exchange rules relating to Index Fund Shares, are reasonably designed to promote a fair and orderly market for such Managed Fund Shares. These proposed standards would also work in conjunction with the existing initial and continued listing criteria related to surveillance procedures and trading guidelines.
In support of this proposal, the Exchange represents that: (1)
The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues and that the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Members or issuers would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest because it would facilitate the listing and trading of additional Managed Fund Shares, which would enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. Specifically, after more than six years under the current process, whereby an exchange is required to file a proposed rule change with the Commission for the listing and trading of each new series of Managed Fund Shares, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to codify certain rules within Rule 14.11(i) that would generally eliminate the need for separate proposed rule changes. The Exchange believes that this would facilitate the listing and trading of additional types of Managed Fund Shares that have investment portfolios that are similar to investment portfolios for Index Fund Shares, which have been approved for listing and trading, thereby creating greater efficiencies in the listing process for the Exchange and the Commission. In this regard, the Exchange notes that the standards proposed for Managed Fund Share portfolios that include equity securities, Derivative Securities Products, and Linked Securities are based in large part on the existing equity security standards applicable to Index Fund Shares based on either a U.S. index or portfolio or an international or global index or portfolio found in Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i)
With respect to the proposed addition to the criteria of Rule 14.11(i)(3)(B) to provide that the Web site for each series of Managed Fund Shares shall disclose certain information regarding the Disclosed Portfolio, to the extent applicable, the Exchange notes that proposed rule changes approved by the Commission for previously-listed series of Managed Fund Shares have similarly included disclosure requirements with respect to each portfolio holding, as applicable to the type of holding.
With respect to the proposed amendment to the continued listing requirement in Rule 14.11(i)(4)(B)(i) to require dissemination of an Intraday Indicative Value at least every 15 seconds during Regular Trading Hours, such requirement conforms to the requirement applicable to the dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value for Index Fund Shares in Rule 14.11(c)(3)(C) and 14.11(c)(6)(A). In addition, such dissemination is consistent with representations made in proposed rule changes for issues of Managed Fund Shares previously approved by the Commission.
As proposed, pursuant to Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(ii)(c) an underlying portfolio (excluding exempted securities) that includes fixed income securities must include a minimum of 13 non-affiliated issuers, provided, however, that there would be no minimum number of non-affiliated issuers required for fixed income securities if at least 70% of the weight of the portfolio consists of equity securities. The Exchange notes that when evaluated in conjunction with proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(ii)(b), the proposed rule is consistent with current Rules 14.11(c)(4)(B)(i)(d) and (e) in that it provides for a maximum weighting of a fixed income security in the fixed income portion of the portfolio of a fund that is comparable to the existing rules applicable to Index Fund Shares based on fixed income indexes.
With respect to the proposed amendment to Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iii) relating to cash and cash equivalents, while there is no limitation on the amount of cash and cash equivalents can make up of the portfolio, such instruments are short-term, highly liquid, and of high credit quality, making them less susceptible than other asset classes both to price manipulation and volatility. Further, the requirement is consistent with representations made in proposed rule changes for issues of Managed Fund Shares previously approved by the Commission.
With respect to proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iv) relating to listed derivatives, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate that there be no limit to the percentage of a portfolio invested in such holdings, provided that, in the aggregate, at least 90% of the weight of such holdings invested in futures, exchange-traded options, and listed swaps would consist of futures, options, and swaps
With respect to proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(v) relating to OTC derivatives, the Exchange believes that the limitation to 20% of a fund's assets would assure that, to the extent that a fund holds derivatives, the preponderance of fund investments would not be in derivatives that are not listed and centrally cleared. The Exchange believes that such a limitation is sufficient to mitigate the risks associated with price manipulation because a 20% cap on OTC derivatives will ensure that any series of Managed Fund Shares will be sufficiently broad-based in scope to minimize potential manipulation associated with OTC derivatives because the remaining 80% of the portfolio will consist of instruments subject to numerous restrictions designed to prevent manipulation, including equity securities (which, as proposed, would be subject to market cap, trading volume, and diversity requirements, among others), fixed income securities (which, as proposed, would be subject to principal amount outstanding, diversity, and issuer requirements, among others), cash and cash equivalents (which, as proposed, would be limited to short-term, highly liquid, and high credit quality instruments), and/or listed derivatives (which, as proposed, 90% of the weight of futures and options will be futures and options whose principal market is a member of ISG). With respect to proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(vi) related to a fund's use of listed or OTC derivatives to gain exposure to individual equities and/or fixed income securities, or to indexes of equities and/or indexes of fixed income securities, the Exchange notes that such exposure would be required to meet the numerical and other criteria set forth in proposed Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(i) and 14.11(i)(4)(C)(ii), respectively.
Quotation and other market information relating to listed futures and options is available from the exchanges listing such instruments as well as from market data vendors. With respect to centrally-cleared swaps
With respect to security-based swaps regulated by the Commission, the Commission has adopted Regulation SBSR under the Act implementing requirements for regulatory reporting and public dissemination of security-based swap transactions set forth in Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act. Regulation SBSR provides for the reporting of security-based swap information to registered security-based swap data repositories (“Registered SDRs”) or the Commission, and the public dissemination of security-based
Price information relating to forwards and OTC options will be available from major market data vendors.
The Exchange notes that a fund's investments in derivative instruments would be subject to limits on leverage imposed by the 1940 Act. Section 18(f) of the 1940 Act and related Commission guidance limit the amount of leverage an investment company can obtain. A fund's investments would be consistent with its investment objective and would not be used to enhance leverage. To limit the potential risk associated with a fund's use of derivatives, a fund will segregate or “earmark” assets determined to be liquid by a fund in accordance with the 1940 Act (or, as permitted by applicable regulation, enter into certain offsetting positions) to cover its obligations under derivative instruments. A fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
The proposed rule change is also designed to protect investors and the public interest because Managed Fund Shares listed and traded pursuant to Rule 14.11(i), including pursuant to the proposed new portfolio standards, would continue to be subject to the full panoply of Exchange rules and procedures that currently govern the trading of equity securities on the Exchange, as further described in the Approval Order.
The proposed rule change is also designed to protect investors and the public interest as well as to promote just and equitable principles of trade in that any Non-U.S. Component Stocks will each meet the following criteria initially and on a continuing basis: (1) Have a minimum market value of at least $100 million; (2) have a minimum global monthly trading volume of 250,000 shares, or minimum global notional volume traded per month of $25,000,000, averaged over the last six months; (3) most heavily weighted Non-U.S. Component Stock shall not exceed 25% of the equity weight of the portfolio, and, to the extent applicable, the five most heavily weighted Non-U.S. Component Stocks shall not exceed 60% of the equity weight of the portfolio; and (4) each Non-U.S. Component Stock shall be listed and traded on an exchange that has last-sale reporting. The Exchange believes that such quantitative criteria are sufficient to mitigate any concerns that may arise on the basis of a series of Managed Fund Shares potentially holding 100% of its assets in Non-U.S. Component Stocks that are neither listed on members of ISG nor exchanges with which the Exchange has in place a CSSA because, as stated above, such criteria are either the same or more stringent than the portfolio requirements for Index Fund Shares that hold Non-U.S. Component Stocks and there are no such requirements related to such securities being listed on an exchange that is a member of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a CSSA. Further, the Exchange has not encountered and is not aware of any instances of manipulation or other negative impact in any series of Index Fund Shares that has occurred by virtue of the Index Fund Shares holding such Non-U.S. Component Stocks. As such, the Exchange believes that there should be no difference in the portfolio requirements for Managed Fund Shares and Index Fund Shares as it relates to holding Non-U.S. Component Stocks that are not listed on an exchange that is a member of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a CSSA.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices because the Managed Fund Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in Rule 14.11(i). The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Managed Fund Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in Managed Fund Shares and their underlying components with other markets that are members of the ISG, including all U.S. securities exchanges and futures exchanges on which the components are traded, or with which the Exchange has in place a CSSA.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change would fulfill the intended objective of Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act by allowing Managed Fund Shares that satisfy the proposed listing standards to be listed and traded without separate Commission approval. However, as proposed, the Exchange would continue to file separate proposed rule changes before the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares that do not satisfy the additional criteria described above.
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would facilitate the listing and trading of additional types of Managed Fund Shares and result in a significantly more efficient process surrounding the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares, which will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. The Exchange believes that this would reduce the time frame for bringing Managed Fund Shares to market, thereby reducing the burdens on issuers and other market participants and promoting competition. In turn, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would make the process for listing Managed Fund Shares more competitive by applying uniform listing standards with respect to Managed Fund Shares.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal, as modified by Amendments No. 1, No. 3, and No. 4 thereto. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal, as modified by Amendments No. 1, No. 3, and No. 4 thereto, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
In addition, interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal, as modified by Amendments No. 1, No. 3, and No. 4 thereto, should be approved or disapproved by March 18, 2016. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by April 1, 2016.
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the statements of the Exchange contained in the Notice,
1. As described above, the Exchange has proposed listing standards with respect to certain asset classes held by actively managed exchange-traded funds that are substantively the same as the standards applied to those asset classes when held by an index-based fund. Do commenters believe that these standards are appropriate for both types of funds?
2. Do commenters believe that the limitations and standards proposed for specific assets classes are appropriate?
3. In general, do commenters believe that the proposed listing requirements are adequate to deter manipulation with respect to generically listed Managed Fund Shares?
4. With respect to the proposed generic listing standards, which set forth requirements for the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on an initial and continuing basis, do commenters have views on how or whether the Exchange would be able to monitor compliance with respect to these continuing listing standards? Do commenters have views on what actions, if any, should be taken by the Exchange if a series of Managed Fund Shares listed and trading on the Exchange falls out of compliance with any of the proposed generic criteria? 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of application for an exemptive order under Section 206A of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) and Rule 206(4)-5(e).
Brookfield Asset Management Private Institutional Capital Adviser US, LLC and Brookfield Asset Management Private Institutional Capital Adviser (Canada), L.P. (“Applicants”).
Exemption requested under section 206A of the Advisers Act and rule 206(4)-5(e) from rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) under the Advisers Act.
Applicants request that the Commission issue an order under section 206A of the Advisers Act and rule 206(4)-5(e) exempting them from rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) under the Advisers Act to permit Applicants to receive compensation for investment advisory services provided to government entities within the two-year period following a contribution by a covered associate of Applicant to an official of the government entities.
The application was filed on January 29, 2014, and amended and restated applications were filed on February 26, 2014, August 13, 2014 and October 7, 2015.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on March 18, 2016, and should be accompanied by proof of service on Applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Advisers Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons may request notification of a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, Brookfield Asset Management Private Institutional Capital Adviser US, LLC et al., 250 Vesey Street, 15th Floor, New York, NY 10281.
Aaron T. Gilbride, Senior Counsel or Sara P. Crovitz, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site either at
1. Brookfield Asset Management Private Institutional Capital Adviser US, LLC (“Brookfield US”) and Brookfield Asset Management Private Institutional Capital Adviser (Canada), L.P. (“Brookfield Canada” and, together with Brookfield US, the “Applicants”), are affiliated asset management companies registered with the Commission as investment advisers under the Advisers Act and are indirectly wholly-owned by Brookfield Asset Management, Inc., a public company. Brookfield US advises, among other private funds, Brookfield Strategic Real Estate Partners B L.P. (“Fund A”), a private fund that is part of Brookfield's Real Estate Platform, and Brookfield Canada advises, among other private funds, Brookfield Infrastructure Fund II-B, L.P. (“Fund B”), a private fund that is part of Brookfield's Infrastructure Platform. Fund A and Fund B are collectively referred to as the “Funds.” Both Funds are excluded from the definition of “investment company” by Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. Certain public pension plans that are government entities of New York City (the “Clients”) are invested in the Funds. The investment decisions for the Clients are made by the respective boards of trustees, which range from seven to 15 members, and include certain elected officials sitting
2. On January 13, 2013, Richard B. Clark, a Senior Managing Partner, Global Head of Brookfield's Real Estate Platform, Brookfield Property Group, and Non-Executive Chairman of the Board of Brookfield Office Properties (“BPO”), a non-investment adviser commercial real estate corporation that owns, manages, and develops real estate and is affiliated with the Applicants and Brookfield (the “Contributor”), made a $400 campaign contribution (the “Contribution”) to the campaign of Christine Quinn (the “Official”), a New York City Councilwoman who was Council Speaker. The Contribution was given in connection with a fundraiser for the Official's campaign on January 13, 2013, which the Contributor attended. At the time of the Contribution, the Official was a candidate for New York City Mayor.
3. Applicants represent that the amount of the Contribution, profile of the candidate, and characteristics of the campaign fall generally within the pattern of the Contributor's other political donations.
4. Applicants represent that the Contributor has confirmed that he has not, at any time, had any contact with the Official concerning campaign contributions, nor has the Contributor told any prospective or existing investor (including the Clients) about the Contribution.
5. Applicants represent that the Contributor's role with the Clients was limited to making substantive presentations to the Clients' representatives and consultants about the Real Estate Platform Brookfield US manages. Applicants represent that the Contributor had no contact with any representative of the Clients outside of such presentation and no contact with any member of the board of trustees which oversees the investment decisions of the Clients.
6. Applicants represent that the Clients made their investment in Fund A on May 23, 2012, approximately eight months prior to the Contributor making the Contribution. The Clients invested in Fund B on July 8, 2013. Applicants represent that the Contributor was not involved in any contacts with the Clients, their representatives or the New York City Comptroller's office in relation to their investment in Fund B.
7. Applicants represent that the Contributor did not solicit any other persons to make contributions to the Official's campaign and did not arrange any introductions to potential supporters.
8. Applicants represent that the Contribution was discovered by the Contributor following completion of his annual certification regarding compliance with the Applicants'
9. Applicants represent that at no time did any of Applicant's other employees have any knowledge that the Contribution had been made prior to its discovery by the Applicants' Chief Compliance Officer on February 22, 2013.
10. Applicants represent that they had adopted and implemented compliance procedures meeting the requirements of rule 206(4)-5. Applicants represent that their compliance procedures prohibit contributions by covered associates to state or local candidates or officials. Applicants represent that their compliance procedures apply to all of Applicants' covered associates, and those who may become covered associates. Applicant represents that all employees are required to certify their compliance on a periodic basis.
1. Rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) under the Advisers Act prohibits a registered investment adviser from providing investment advisory services for compensation to a government entity within two years after a contribution to an official of the government entity is made by the investment adviser or any covered associate of the investment adviser. The Clients are each a “government entity,” as defined in rule 206(4)-5(f)(5), the Contributor is a “covered associate” as defined in rule 206(4)-5(f)(2), and the Official is an “official” as defined in rule 206(4)-5(f)(6). Rule 206(4)-5(c) provides that when a government entity invests in a covered investment pool, the investment adviser to that covered investment pool is treated as providing advisory services directly to the government entity. The Funds are each a “covered investment pool,” as defined in rule 206(4)-5(f)(3)(ii).
2. Section 206A of the Advisers Act grants the Commission the authority to “conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person or transaction . . . from any provision or provisions of [the Advisers Act] or of any rule or regulation thereunder, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of [the Advisers Act].”
3. Rule 206(4)-5(e) provides that the Commission may exempt an investment adviser from the prohibition under rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) upon consideration of the factors listed below, among others:
(1) Whether the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Advisers Act;
(2) Whether the investment adviser: (i) Before the contribution resulting in the prohibition was made, adopted and implemented policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the rule; and (ii) prior to or at the time the contribution which resulted in such prohibition was made, had no actual knowledge of the contribution; and (iii) after learning of the contribution: (A) Has taken all available steps to cause the contributor involved in making the contribution which resulted in such prohibition to obtain a return of the contribution; and (B) has taken such other remedial or preventive measures as may be appropriate under the circumstances;
(3) Whether, at the time of the contribution, the contributor was a covered associate or otherwise an employee of the investment adviser, or was seeking such employment;
(4) The timing and amount of the contribution which resulted in the prohibition;
(5) The nature of the election (
(6) The contributor's apparent intent or motive in making the contribution which resulted in the prohibition, as evidenced by the facts and circumstances surrounding such contribution.
4. Applicants request an order pursuant to section 206A and rule 206(4)-5(e), exempting them from the two-year prohibition on compensation imposed by rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) with respect to investment advisory services provided to the Clients within the two-year period following the Contribution.
5. Applicants submit that the exemption is necessary and appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Advisers Act. Applicants further submit that the other factors set forth in rule 206(4)-5(e) similarly weigh in favor of granting an exemption to the Applicants to avoid consequences disproportionate to the violation.
6. Applicants state that the relationship with the Clients pre-date the Contribution and that only the investment in Fund B (in which the Contributor did not play a role) was made subsequent to the Contribution. Applicants state that the Contribution was made eight months after the Clients' investment in Fund A. Applicants note that they established and maintain their relationships with the Clients on an arms'-length basis free from any improper influence as a result of the Contribution.
7. Applicants state that at all relevant times they had policies which were fully compliant with rule 206(4)-5's requirements at the time of the Contribution. Applicants further state that at no time did Applicants or any employees of Applicants, other than the Contributor, have any knowledge that the Contribution had been made prior to its discovery by Applicants' Chief Compliance Officer in February 2013. After learning of the Contribution, Applicants and the Contributor took all available steps to obtain a return of the Contribution. Escrow accounts were set up for the Clients at both Funds and all fees charged to the Clients' capital accounts in the Funds since January 13, 2013 were deposited by the Applicants in the accounts for immediate return to the Funds should an exemptive order not be granted.
8. Applicants state that the Contributor's apparent intent in making the Contribution was not to influence the selection or retention of the Applicants. The amount of the Contribution, profile of the candidate, and characteristics of the campaign fall generally within the pattern of the Contributor's other political donations. Applicants further state, as discussed above, that the Contributor's involvement with the Clients has been limited to making substantive
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On November 6, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On November 23, 2015, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, which amended and replaced the original proposal in its entirety. On January 4, 2016, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act
Additionally, this order institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 to adopt generic listing standards for Managed Fund Shares. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 to adopt generic listing standards for Managed Fund Shares. Under the Exchange's current rules, a proposed rule change must be filed with the Securities and
Rule 8.600 sets forth certain rules related to the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares.
(a) Represents an interest in a registered investment company (“Investment Company”) organized as an open-end management investment company or similar entity, that invests in a portfolio of securities selected by the Investment Company's investment adviser (hereafter “Adviser”) consistent with the Investment Company's investment objectives and policies;
(b) is issued in a specified aggregate minimum number in return for a deposit of a specified portfolio of securities and/or a cash amount with a value equal to the next determined net asset value; and
(c) when aggregated in the same specified minimum number, may be redeemed at a holder's request, which holder will be paid a specified portfolio of securities and/or cash with a value equal to the next determined net asset value.
Effectively, Managed Fund Shares are securities issued by an actively-managed open-end Investment Company (
All Managed Fund Shares listed and/or traded pursuant to Rule 8.600 (including pursuant to unlisted trading privileges) are subject to the full panoply of Exchange rules and procedures that currently govern the trading of equity securities on the Exchange.
In addition, Rule 8.600(d) currently provides for the criteria that Managed Fund Shares must satisfy for initial and continued listing on the Exchange, including, for example, that a minimum number of Managed Fund Shares are required to be outstanding at the time of commencement of trading on the Exchange. However, the current process for listing and trading new series of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange requires that the Exchange submit a proposed rule change with the Commission. In this regard, Commentary .01 to Rule 8.600 specifies that the Exchange will file separate proposals under Section 19(b) of the Act (hereafter, a “proposed rule change”) before listing and trading of shares of an issue of Managed Fund Shares.
The Exchange would amend Commentary .01 to Rule 8.600 to specify that the Exchange may approve Managed Fund Shares for listing and/or trading (including pursuant to unlisted trading privileges) pursuant to SEC Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act, which pertains to derivative securities products (“SEC Rule 19b-4(e)”).
The Exchange would also specify within Commentary .01 to Rule 8.600 that components of Managed Fund Shares listed pursuant to SEC Rule 19b-4(e) must satisfy on an initial and continued basis certain specific criteria, which the Exchange would include within Commentary .01, as described in greater detail below. As proposed, the Exchange would continue to file separate proposed rule changes before the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares with components that do not satisfy the additional criteria described below or components other than those specified below. For example, if the components of a Managed Fund Share exceeded one of the applicable thresholds, the Exchange would file a separate proposed rule change before listing and trading such Managed Fund Share. Similarly, if the components of a Managed Fund Share included a security or asset that is not specified below, the Exchange would file a separate proposed rule change.
The Exchange would also add to the criteria of Rule 8.600(c) to provide that the Web site for each series of Managed Fund Shares shall disclose certain information regarding the Disclosed Portfolio, to the extent applicable. The required information includes the following, to the extent applicable: ticker symbol, CUSIP or other identifier, a description of the holding, identity of the asset upon which the derivative is based, the strike price for any options, the quantity of each security or other asset held as measured by select metrics, maturity date, coupon rate, effective date, market value and percentage weight of the holding in the portfolio.
In addition, the Exchange would amend Rule 8.600(d) to specify that all Managed Fund Shares must have a stated investment objective, which must be adhered to under normal market conditions.
Finally, the Exchange would also amend the continued listing requirement in Rule 8.600(d)(2)(A) by changing the requirement that a Portfolio Indicative Value for Managed Fund Shares be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the time when the Managed Fund Shares trade on the Exchange to a requirement that a Portfolio Indicative Value be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Core Trading Session (as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34).
The Exchange is proposing standards that would pertain to Managed Fund Shares to qualify for listing and trading pursuant to SEC Rule 19b-4(e). These standards would be grouped according to security or asset type. The Exchange notes that the standards proposed for a Managed Fund Share portfolio that holds U.S. Component Stocks, Non-U.S. Component Stocks, Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities are based in large part on the existing equity security standards applicable to Units in Commentary .01 to Rule 5.2(j)(3). The standards proposed for a Managed Fund Share portfolio that holds fixed income securities are based in large part on the existing fixed income security standards applicable to Units in Commentary .02 to Rule 5.2(j)(3). Many of the standards proposed for other types of holdings in a Managed Fund Share portfolio are based on previous proposed rule changes for specific series of Managed Fund Shares.
Proposed Commentary .01(a) would describe the standards for a Managed Fund Share portfolio that holds equity securities, which are defined to be U.S. Component Stocks,
As proposed in Commentary .01(a)(1) to Rule 8.600, the component stocks of the equity portion of a portfolio that are U.S. Component Stocks shall meet the following criteria initially and on a continuing basis:
(1) Component stocks (excluding Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities) that in the aggregate account for at least 90% of the equity weight of the portfolio (excluding such Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities) each must have a minimum market value of at least $75 million;
(2) Component stocks (excluding Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities) that in the aggregate account for at least 70% of the equity weight of the portfolio (excluding such Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities) each must have a minimum monthly trading volume of 250,000 shares, or minimum notional volume traded per month of $25,000,000, averaged over the last six months;
(3) The most heavily weighted component stock (excluding Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities) must not exceed 30% of the equity weight of the portfolio, and, to the extent applicable, the five most heavily weighted component stocks (excluding Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities) must not exceed 65% of the equity weight of the portfolio;
(4) Where the equity portion of the portfolio does not include Non-U.S. Component Stocks, the equity portion of the portfolio shall include a minimum of 13 component stocks; provided, however, that there shall be no minimum number of component stocks if (a) one or more series of Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities constitute, at least in part, components underlying a series of Managed Fund Shares, or (b) one or more series of Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities account for 100% of the equity weight of the portfolio of a series of Managed Fund Shares;
(5) Except as provided in proposed Commentary .01(a), equity securities in the portfolio must be U.S. Component Stocks listed on a national securities exchange and must be NMS Stocks as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS;
(6) American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) may be exchange-traded or non-exchange-traded. However no more than 10% of the equity weight of the portfolio shall consist of non-exchange-traded ADRs.
As proposed in Commentary .01(a)(2) to Rule 8.600, the component stocks of the equity portion of a portfolio that are Non-U.S. Component Stocks shall meet the following criteria initially and on a continuing basis:
(1) Non-U.S. Component Stocks each shall have a minimum market value of at least $100 million;
(2) Non-U.S. Component Stocks each shall have a minimum global monthly trading volume of 250,000 shares, or minimum global notional volume traded per month of $25,000,000, averaged over the last six months;
(3) The most heavily weighted Non-U.S. Component Stock shall not exceed 25% of the equity weight of the portfolio, and, to the extent applicable, the five most heavily weighted Non-U.S. Component Stocks shall not exceed 60% of the equity weight of the portfolio;
(4) Where the equity portion of the portfolio includes Non-U.S. Component Stocks, the equity portion of the portfolio shall include a minimum of 20 component stocks; provided, however, that there shall be no minimum number of component stocks if (i) one or more series of Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities constitute, at least in part, components underlying a series of Managed Fund Shares, or (ii) one or more series of Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities account for 100% of the equity weight of the portfolio of a series of Managed Fund Shares;
(5) Each Non-U.S. Component Stock shall be listed and traded on an exchange that has last-sale reporting.
The Exchange notes that it is not proposing to require that any of the equity portion of the equity portfolio composed of Non-U.S. Component Stocks be listed on markets that are either a member of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) or a market with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement (“CSSA”).
Proposed Commentary .01(b) would describe the standards for a Managed Fund Share portfolio that holds fixed income securities, which are debt securities
The components of the fixed income portion of a portfolio must meet the following criteria initially and on a continuing basis:
(1) Components that in the aggregate account for at least 75% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio each shall have a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more;
(2) No component fixed-income security (excluding Treasury Securities and GSE Securities) could represent more than 30% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio, and the five most heavily weighted component fixed income securities in the portfolio must not in the aggregate account for more than 65% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio;
(3) An underlying portfolio (excluding exempted securities) that includes fixed income securities must include a minimum of 13 non-affiliated issuers;
(4) Component securities that in aggregate account for at least 90% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio must be either (a) from issuers that are required to file reports pursuant to Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Act; (b) from issuers that have a worldwide market value of its outstanding common equity held by non-affiliates of $700 million or more; (c) from issuers that have outstanding securities that are notes, bonds, debentures, or evidence of indebtedness having a total remaining principal amount of at least $1 billion; (d) exempted securities as defined in Section 3(a)(12) of the Act; or (e) from issuers that are a government of a foreign country or a political subdivision of a foreign country; and
(5) Non-agency, non-GSE and privately-issued mortgage-related and other asset-backed securities components of a portfolio shall not account, in the aggregate, for more than 20% of the weight of the fixed income portion of the portfolio.
Proposed Commentary .01(c) would describe the standards for a Managed Fund Share portfolio that holds cash and cash equivalents.
(1) U.S. Government securities, including bills, notes and bonds differing as to maturity and rates of interest, which are either issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or by U.S. Government agencies or instrumentalities;
(2) certificates of deposit issued against funds deposited in a bank or savings and loan association;
(3) bankers' acceptances, which are short-term credit instruments used to finance commercial transactions;
(4) repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreements;
(5) bank time deposits, which are monies kept on deposit with banks or savings and loan associations for a stated period of time at a fixed rate of interest;
(6) commercial paper, which are short-term unsecured promissory notes; and
(7) money market funds.
Proposed Commentary .01(d) would describe the standards for a Managed Fund Share portfolio that holds listed derivatives, including futures, options and swaps on commodities, currencies and financial instruments (
Proposed Commentary .01(e) would describe the standards for a Managed Fund Share portfolio that holds over the counter (“OTC”) derivatives, including forwards, options and swaps on commodities, currencies and financial instruments (
Proposed Commentary .01(f) would provide that, to the extent that listed or OTC derivatives are used to gain exposure to individual equities and/or fixed income securities, or to indexes of equities and/or fixed income securities, such equities and/or fixed income securities, as applicable, shall meet the criteria set forth in Commentary .01(a) and .01(b) to Rule 8.600, respectively. The Exchange notes that, for purposes of this proposal, a portfolio's investment in OTC derivatives will be calculated as the ~total absolute notional value of the OTC derivatives.
The Exchange believes that the proposed standards would continue to ensure transparency surrounding the listing process for Managed Fund Shares. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed portfolio standards for listing and trading Managed Fund Shares, many of which track existing Exchange rules relating to Units, are reasonably designed to promote a fair and orderly market for such Managed Fund Shares.
In support of this proposal, the Exchange represents that:
(1) The Managed Fund Shares will continue to conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under Rule 8.600;
(2) the Exchange's surveillance procedures are adequate to continue to properly monitor the trading of the
(3) prior to the commencement of trading of a particular series of Managed Fund Shares, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit (“ETP”) Holders in a Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Managed Fund Shares, including procedures for purchases and redemptions of Managed Fund Shares, suitability requirements under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), the risks involved in trading the Managed Fund Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated Portfolio Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated, information regarding the Portfolio Indicative Value and the Disclosed Portfolio, prospectus delivery requirements, and other trading information. In addition, the Bulletin will disclose that the Managed Fund Shares are subject to various fees and expenses, as described in the applicable registration statement, and will discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. Finally, the Bulletin will disclose that the net asset value for the Managed Fund Shares will be calculated after 4 p.m. ET each trading day; and
(4) the issuer of a series of Managed Fund Shares will be required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act for the initial and continued listing of Managed Fund Shares, as provided under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.3.
The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues and that the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ETP Holders or issuers would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest because it would facilitate the listing and trading of additional Managed Fund Shares, which would enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. Specifically, after more than six years under the current process, whereby the Exchange is required to file a proposed rule change with the Commission for the listing and trading of each new series of Managed Fund Shares, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to codify certain rules within Rule 8.600 that would generally eliminate the need for separate proposed rule changes. The Exchange believes that this would facilitate the listing and trading of additional types of Managed Fund Shares that have investment portfolios that are similar to investment portfolios for Units, which have been approved for listing and trading, thereby creating greater efficiencies in the listing process for the Exchange and the Commission. In this regard, the Exchange notes that the standards proposed for Managed Fund Share portfolios that include U.S. Component Stocks, Non-U.S. Component Stocks, Derivative Securities Products, and Index-Linked Securities are based in large part on the existing equity security standards applicable to Units in Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) and that the standards proposed for Managed Fund Share portfolios that include fixed income securities are based in large part on the existing fixed income standards applicable to Units in Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). Additionally, many of the standards proposed for other types of holdings of series of Managed Fund Shares are based on previous proposed rule changes for specific series of Managed Fund Shares.
With respect to the proposed addition to the criteria of Rule 8.600(c) to provide that the Web site for each series of Managed Fund Shares shall disclose certain information regarding the Disclosed Portfolio, to the extent applicable, the Exchange notes that proposed rule changes approved by the Commission for previously-listed series of Managed Fund Shares have similarly included disclosure requirements with respect to each portfolio holding, as applicable to the type of holding.
With respect to the proposed amendment to the continued listing requirement in Rule 8.600(d)(2)(A) to require dissemination of a Portfolio Indicative Value at least every 15 seconds during the Core Trading Session (as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34), such requirement conforms to the requirement applicable to the dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value for Units in Commentary .01(c) and Commentary .02 (c) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). In addition, such dissemination is consistent with representations made in proposed rule changes for issues of Managed Fund Shares previously approved by the Commission.
With respect to the proposed requirement in Commentary .01(a) that no more than 25% of the equity weight of the portfolio shall consist of leveraged and/or inverse leveraged Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities, such requirement would assure that only a relatively small proportion of a fund's investments could consist of such leveraged and/or inverse securities. In addition, such limitation would apply to both U.S. Component Stocks and Non-U.S. Component Stocks comprising the equity portion of a portfolio. With respect to the proposed provision in Commentary .01(a) that, to the extent a portfolio includes a convertible security, the equity security into which such security is converted must meet the criteria in Commentary .01(a) after converting, such requirement would assure that the equity securities into which a convertible security could be converted meet the liquidity and other criteria in Commentary .01 applicable to such equity securities. With respect to the proposed exclusion of Derivatives Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities from the requirements of proposed Commentary .01(a) of Rule
With respect to the proposed criteria applicable to U.S. Component Stocks, the Exchange notes that such criteria are similar to those in Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) relating to criteria applicable to an index or portfolio of U.S. Component Stocks. In addition, Non-U.S. Component Stocks also will be required to meet criteria similar to certain generic listing standards in Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) relating to criteria applicable to an index or portfolio of U.S. Component Stocks and Non-U.S. Component Stocks underlying a series of Units to be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act.
With respect to the proposed requirement in Commentary .01(a)(1)(F) that ADRs in a portfolio may be exchange-traded or non-exchange-traded and that no more than 10% of the equity weight of the portfolio shall consist of non-exchange-traded ADRs, the Exchange notes that such requirement will ensure that unsponsored ADRs, which are traded OTC and which generally have less market transparency than sponsored ADRs, as well as any sponsored ADRs traded OTC, could account for only a small percentage of the equity weight of a portfolio. Further, the requirement is consistent with representations made in proposed rule changes for issues of Managed Fund Shares previously approved by the Commission.
With respect to the proposed provision in Commentary .01(b) that, to the extent a portfolio includes convertible securities, the fixed income security into which such security is converted must meet the criteria in paragraph (b) of Commentary .01 after converting, such requirement would assure that the fixed income securities into which a convertible security could be converted meet the liquidity and other criteria in Commentary .01(b) applicable to fixed income securities.
As proposed, pursuant to Commentary .01(b)(3) to Rule 8.600, an underlying portfolio (excluding exempted securities) that includes fixed income securities must include a minimum of 13 non-affiliated issuers, but there would be no minimum number of non-affiliated issuers required for fixed income securities if at least 70% of the weight of the portfolio consists of equity securities, as described in Commentary .01(a). The Exchange notes that, when evaluated in conjunction with proposed Commentary .01(b)(2), the proposed rule is consistent with Commentary .02(a)(4) and (5) of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) in that it provides for a maximum weighting of a fixed income security in the fixed income portion of the portfolio of a fund that is comparable to the existing rules applicable to Investment Company Units based on fixed income indexes.
With respect to the proposed requirement in Commentary .01(b)(5) that non-agency, non-GSE and privately-issued mortgage-related and other asset-backed securities components of a portfolio shall not account, in the aggregate, for more than 20% of the weight of the fixed income portion of the portfolio, the Exchange notes that such requirement is consistent with representations made in proposed rule changes for issues of Managed Fund Shares previously approved by the Commission.
With respect to the proposed amendment to Commentary .01(c) relating to cash and cash equivalents, while there is no limitation on the amount of cash and cash equivalents that can make up the portfolio, such instruments are short-term, highly liquid, and of high credit quality, making them less susceptible than other asset classes both to price manipulation and volatility. Further, the requirement is consistent with representations made in proposed rule changes for issues of Managed Fund Shares previously approved by the Commission.
With respect to proposed Commentary .01(d)(1) to Rule 8.600 relating to listed derivatives, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate that there be no limit to the percentage of a portfolio invested in such holdings, provided that, in the aggregate, at least 90% of the weight of such holdings invested in futures, exchange-traded options, and listed swaps would consist of futures, options, and swaps for which the Exchange may obtain information via ISG from other members or affiliates or for which the principal market is a market with which the Exchange has a CSSA. Such a requirement would facilitate information sharing among market participants trading shares of a series of Managed Fund Shares as well as futures and options that such series may hold. In addition, listed swaps would be centrally cleared, reducing counterparty risk and thereby furthering investor protection.
With respect to proposed Commentary .01(e) to Rule 8.600 relating to OTC derivatives, the Exchange believes that the limitation to 20% of a fund's assets would assure that the preponderance of fund investments would not be in derivatives that are not listed and centrally cleared. The Exchange believes that such a limitation is sufficient to mitigate the risks associated with price manipulation because a 20% cap on OTC derivatives will ensure that any series of Managed Fund Shares will be sufficiently broad-based in scope to minimize potential manipulation associated with OTC
The Exchange notes that a fund's investments in derivative instruments would be subject to limits on leverage imposed by the 1940 Act. Section 18(f) of the 1940 Act and related Commission guidance limit the amount of leverage an investment company can obtain. A fund's investments would be consistent with its investment objective and would not be used to enhance leverage. To limit the potential risk associated with a fund's use of derivatives, a fund will segregate or “earmark” assets determined to be liquid by a fund in accordance with the 1940 Act (or, as permitted by applicable regulation, enter into certain offsetting positions) to cover its obligations under derivative instruments.
With respect to proposed Commentary .01(f) to Rule 8.600 relating to a fund's use of listed or OTC derivatives to gain exposure to individual equities and/or fixed income securities, or to indexes of equities and/or indexes of fixed income securities, the Exchange notes that such exposure would be required to meet the numerical and other criteria set forth in proposed Commentary .01(a) and .01(b) to Rule 8.600 respectively.
Quotation and other market information relating to listed futures and options is available from the exchanges listing such instruments as well as from market data vendors. With respect to centrally-cleared swaps
With respect to security-based swaps regulated by the Commission, the Commission has adopted Regulation SBSR under the Act implementing requirements for regulatory reporting and public dissemination of security-based swap transactions set forth in Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act. Regulation SBSR provides for the reporting of security-based swap information to registered security-based swap data repositories (“Registered SDRs”) or the Commission, and the public dissemination of security-based swap transaction, volume, and pricing information by Registered SDRs.
Price information relating to forwards and OTC options will be available from major market data vendors.
A fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
The proposed rule change is also designed to protect investors and the public interest because Managed Fund Shares listed and traded pursuant to Rule 8.600, including pursuant to the proposed new portfolio standards, would continue to be subject to the full panoply of Exchange rules and procedures that currently govern the trading of equity securities on the Exchange.
The proposed rule change is also designed to protect investors and the public interest as well as to promote just and equitable principles of trade in that any Non-U.S. Component Stocks will each meet the following criteria initially and on a continuing basis: (1) Have a minimum market value of at least $100 million; (2) have a minimum global monthly trading volume of 250,000 shares, or minimum global notional volume traded per month of $25,000,000, averaged over the last six months; (3) most heavily weighted Non-U.S. Component Stock shall not exceed 25% of the equity weight of the portfolio, and, to the extent applicable, the five most heavily weighted Non-U.S. Component Stocks shall not exceed 60% of the equity weight of the portfolio; and (4) each Non-U.S. Component Stock shall be listed and traded on an exchange that has last-sale reporting. The Exchange believes that such quantitative criteria are sufficient to mitigate any concerns that may arise on the basis of a series of Managed Fund Shares potentially holding 100% of its assets in Non-U.S. Component Stocks that are neither listed on members of ISG nor exchanges with which the Exchange has in place a CSSA because, as stated above, such criteria are either the same or more stringent than the portfolio requirements for Units that hold Non-U.S. Component Stocks and there are no such requirements related to such securities being listed on an
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices because the Managed Fund Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in Rule 8.600. The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Managed Fund Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or the regulatory staff of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in Managed Fund Shares with other markets that are members of the ISG, including all U.S. securities exchanges and futures exchanges on which the components are traded. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in Managed Fund Shares from other markets that are members of the ISG, including all U.S. securities exchanges and futures exchanges on which the components are traded, or with which the Exchange has in place a CSSA.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change would fulfill the intended objective of Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act by allowing Managed Fund Shares that satisfy the proposed listing standards to be listed and traded without separate Commission approval. However, as proposed, the Exchange would continue to file separate proposed rule changes before the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares that do not satisfy the additional criteria described above.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 4 thereto. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 4 thereto, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
In addition, interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 4 thereto, should be approved or disapproved by March 18, 2016. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by April 1, 2016.
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the statements of the Exchange contained in the Notice,
1. As described above, the Exchange has proposed listing standards with respect to certain asset classes held by actively managed exchange-traded funds that are substantively the same as the standards applied to those asset classes when held by an index-based fund. Do commenters believe that these standards are appropriate for both types of funds?
2. Do commenters believe that the limitations and standards proposed for specific assets classes are appropriate?
3. In general, do commenters believe that the proposed listing requirements are adequate to deter manipulation with respect to generically listed Managed Fund Shares?
4. With respect to the proposed generic listing standards, which set forth requirements for the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on an initial and continuing basis, do commenters have views on how or whether the Exchange would be able to monitor compliance with respect to these continuing listing standards? Do commenters have views on what actions, if any, should be taken by the Exchange if a series of Managed Fund Shares listed and trading on the Exchange falls out of compliance with any of the proposed generic criteria?
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 (the “Act” or the “Exchange Act”),
ISE proposes to correct, .08 of Supplementary Material to Rule 313, Registration Requirements, which describes the categories of registration and respective qualification examinations required for individual associated persons (“associated persons”) that engage in the securities activities of members on the Exchange. This amendment proposes to replace the inadvertent use of the term “Permit Holder” with “Member” which is the correct term used throughout the ISE Rulebook to describe a member of the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to make corrections to .08 of Supplementary Material to Rule 313, Registration Requirements, which describes the categories of registration and respective qualification examinations required for associated persons that engage in the securities activities of members on the Exchange. This amendment proposes to replace the inadvertent use of the term “Permit Holder” with “Member” because “Member” is the correct term used throughout the ISE Rulebook to describe a member of the Exchange.
In December of 2015, ISE proposed to, among other things, (1) replace the Proprietary Trader registration category and the Series 56 Proprietary Trader registration qualification examination with the Securities Trader category of registration and the Series 57 Securities
Currently, .08 of Supplementary Material to Rule 313, Registration Requirements, inadvertently uses the term “Permit Holder” rather than “Member,” which is the correct term used throughout the ISE Rulebook describe a member of the Exchange. ISE now proposes to amend .08 to Supplementary Material to Rule 313 to reflect ISE's longstanding use of the term “Member” to describe members of the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act because ISE is correcting its rule text to replace the inadvertent use of the term “Permit Holder” with “Member” because “Member” is the correct term used throughout the ISE Rulebook to describe a member of the Exchange.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to (i) reorganize, simplify and make consistent certain text relating to Lead Market-Maker (“LMM”) and Designated Primary Market-Market (“DPM”) obligations generally, (ii) amend its rules related to LMMs, (iii) delete outdated references in its rules to Supplemental Market-Makers (“SMMs”) and other obsolete language and (iv) make other corresponding and clarifying changes.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to (i) reorganize, simplify and make consistent certain text relating to LMM and DPM obligations generally, (ii) amend its Rules related to LMMs, (iii) delete outdated references in its Rules to SMMs and other obsolete language and (iv) make other corresponding and clarifying changes.
First, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rules 8.15 (pertaining to LMMs in Hybrid 3.0 classes), 8.15A (pertaining to LMMs in Hybrid classes)
The following table shows certain obligations to which LMMs and DPMs are already subject (either pursuant to Rules 8.15, 8.15A and 8.85 or other Rules),
The Exchange believes the proposed obligation in the fifth row of the table is only a slight modification of the current opening quoting obligations of LMMs and DPMs. The current rules require LMMs and DPMs to enter opening quotes only as necessary to ensure the opening of 100% of series in a class. The Exchange modifies the opening quote requirement to have a specific time (one minute) by when opening quotes must be entered rather than the nonspecific term “promptly.”
Second, the Exchange proposes to amend current Rules 8.15 and 8.15A as follows:
The Exchange believes the proposed changes to current Rules 8.15 and 8.15A described in this table are not significant. The proposed changes in the first two rows of the table are consistent with the Exchange's current authority in
Third, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rules related to LMMs in Hybrid 3.0 classes as follows:
• The proposed rule change codifies the continuous quoting obligations of LMMs in Hybrid 3.0 classes. Current Rule 8.15A(b)(i) requires an LMM in a Hybrid class to provide continuous electronic quotes in at least the lesser of 99% of the non-adjusted option series or 100% of the non-adjusted option series minus one call-put pair, with the term “call-put pair” referring to one call and one put that cover the same underlying instrument and have the same expiration date and exercise price. This obligation does not apply to intra-day add-on series on the day during which such series are added for trading. This obligation applies to an LMM's appointed classes collectively,
The current continuous electronic quoting obligation applicable to LMMs in Hybrid 3.0 classes is to provide continuous electronic quotes in at least 90% of the series of each appointed class for 99% of the time; however, this obligation had not been codified in the Rules. While the proposed rule change modifies the current quoting obligations of LMMs in Hybrid 3.0 classes, it is identical to the obligations imposed on LMMs in Hybrid classes and DPMs.
• Delete references in Interpretation and Policy .02(c) to an Off-Floor LMM/affiliated Market-Maker pilot. The pilot has expired so it is no longer necessary to include this provision in the rule text;
• replace references to LMMs being assigned to a “zone” within a Hybrid 3.0 class with a reference indicating that the Exchange may arrange the series of a class into “groups” and may appoint LMMs to those groups rather than to an individual option class. Zones functioned in a similar manner to groups, as either classes or groups of series of classes were assigned to zones. The “zone” language is outdated, and the “group” language is more consistent with provisions in other Exchange rules;
• delete SMMs from the Rules. The primary purpose of SMMs was to assist LMMs on the trading floor with certain trading rotations (as described in current Rule 8.15(c)). There are currently no SMMs, there have been no SMMs for at least 15 years, and the Exchange no longer intends to appoint SMMs. The rules permit, but do not require, the Exchange to appoint SMMs. In the past, LMMs conducted opening rotations on the trading floor, and the Exchange believed having the ability to appoint SMMs to assist LMMs during particularly busy or unusual openings would help the Exchange maintain a fair and orderly opening. However, the System is currently used to conduct (and has been for quite some time) opening rotations; LMMs primarily role with respect to opening rotations is to enter opening quotes. Thus, the purpose for having SMMs no longer exists. The proposed rule change makes corresponding changes to Rules 3.2, 6.2A, 6.8, 8.7, 8.15 and 24.13 to delete all references to SMMs.
Fourth, the Exchange proposes to revise the description of the Off-Floor DPM and Off-/On-Floor LMM programs described in current Rules 8.15, 8.15A, 8.83 and 8.85 as follows:
• Amend Rule 8.83(g) to provide that, in a Hybrid 3.0 class in which an Off-Floor DPM has been appointed in accordance with Rule 8.83, notwithstanding current Rules 8.15(a) and 8.15A(a) (which provide that the Exchange may appoint an LMM in a class for which a DPM has not been appointed), the Exchange in its discretion may also appoint an On-Floor LMM, which shall be eligible to receive a participation entitlement under current Rule 8.15B with respect to orders represented in open outcry (the provisions in current Rule 8.15A related to the on-floor LMM program will apply to Hybrid 3.0 classes pursuant to proposed Rule 8.15). The Exchange may currently appoint an On-Floor LMM in a class allocated to an Off-Floor DPM for Hybrid classes.
• provide in proposed Rule 8.15, Interpretation and Policy .01(c) that in any class in which an Off-Floor LMM has been appointed in accordance with
• provide in proposed Rule 8.15(b)(i) that in all classes in which both an On-Floor LMM and an Off-Floor LMM have been appointed, the On-Floor LMM shall not be obligated to comply with the continuous quote requirements for an LMM. This change is consistent with the existing provisions for On-Floor LMMs in classes which both an On-Floor LMM and Off-Floor DPM have been appointed and merely extends it to classes in which there is an Off-Floor LMM (which corresponds to the changes discussed above that would permit an On-Floor LMM to be appointed in a class where an Off-Floor LMM has been appointed); and
• provide in proposed Rule 8.15, Interpretation and Policy .01(c) and Rule 8.83(g) to make it clear that, if the Exchange in its discretion determines to reallocate a class in which an Off-Floor DPM or Off-Floor LMM has been appointed, the On-Floor LMM appointment will automatically terminate. (An On-Floor LMM appointment can also terminate or expire as otherwise provided in the Rules.)
Fifth, the Exchange proposes to combine current Rules 8.15 (pertaining to LMMs in Hybrid 3.0 classes), 8.15A (pertaining to LMMs in Hybrid classes) and 8.15B (pertaining to LMM participation entitlements) into a single proposed Rule 8.15. LMMs in Hybrid and Hybrid 3.0 classes generally have, or will have upon effectiveness of the proposed changes described above, the same obligations and receive the same participation entitlement. Proposed Rule 8.15 explicitly identifies the couple of additional obligations that apply to LMMs in Hybrid 3.0 classes only; all other provisions apply to LMMs in all classes. The Exchange believes having a single rule applicable to LMMs will reduce duplication within and simplify the rules applicable to LMMs. The following table identifies provisions in current Rules 8.15 and 8.15B and their proposed location in proposed Rule 8.15. The proposed rule change makes no substantive changes to current Rule 8.15B (some nonsubstantive changes are identified in the table). Proposed substantive and nonsubstantive changes to provisions in current Rule 8.15 are discussed above (the proposed provision in Rule 8.15 identified below includes these changes).
Sixth, the Exchange proposes to delete references to the nonapplicability of strike intervals, bid/ask differential and continuity rules to LEAPS contained in Rules 5.8(a)
The provisions in these Rules were adopted after the language that the Exchange proposes to delete in Rules 5.8(a) and 24.9(b)(1)(A). Thus, the Exchange views these latter-adopted Rules regarding strike price interval, bid/ask differential and quote continuity requirements referenced above as superseding the language proposed to be deleted. This view is supported by the specific applicability (or nonapplicability) of certain of these requirements to LEAPS. The language proposed to be deleted is outdated (it was adopted prior to the implementation of the Hybrid Trading System) and duplicative, and thus no longer necessary. The Exchange also believes the different timing included in this language (nine months for equity LEAPS versus 12 months for index LEAPS) is no longer necessary and is confusing for investors. The deletion of this language has no impact on the strike price interval, bid/ask differential or quote continuity requirements currently imposed by the Exchange, which will continue to be imposed in a manner consistent with the other existing rules discussed above. The Exchange believes that the deletion of these provisions in 5.8(a) and 24.9(b)(1)(A) will provide additional clarity and eliminate any confusion on the applicability of the strike price interval, bid/ask differential and quote continuity requirements that may otherwise result by including duplicative rules on these topics.
Finally, the Exchange is proposing nonsubstantive, technical changes to Rules 1.1(fff) and (ggg), 3.2, 6.1A, 6.2A, 6.45A, 6.45B, 6.74, 8.7, 8.13, 8.14, 8.15, 8.15A, 8.83, 8.85, 17.50, 22.14, 24.9, and 29.17, including amendments to correct typographical errors, update headings, update cross-references to Rules 8.15, 8.15A and 8.15B, make the rule text more plain English, and make the rule text more consistently organized, numbered and worded.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes to amend Rules 8.15, 8.15A and 8.85 to revise descriptions of obligations of LMMs in Hybrid 3.0 classes, LMMs in Hybrid classes, and DPMs, respectively, as well as combining the LMM obligations into a single rule for all classes, will benefit investors by providing more clarity and uniformity to the Rules related to market participants with substantially similar functions and obligations in a manner that is generally consistent with other Rules. Additionally, the Exchange believes that by including the descriptions of applicable obligations within each rule (which currently apply pursuant to other Rules) will promote compliance by LMMs and DPMs.
As demonstrated above, any additional obligations imposed on LMMs by the proposed rule change are de minimis and will not be burdensome, as the obligations as revised generally currently apply to LMMs pursuant to Rules 8.15 and 8.15A or other Rules. With respect to LMMs in Hybrid 3.0 classes, they are currently subject to continuous quoting obligations, which had previously not been codified in the rules. While the proposed rule change amends these obligations, the proposed obligations are identical to the continuous quoting obligations of LMMs in Hybrid classes and DPMs, as well as
The proposed rule change slightly modifies the opening quoting obligations of LMMs and DPMs to include a specific time by which opening quotes must be entered. The proposed timeframe is consistent with the amount of time in which the vast majority of series listed on the Exchange open. The Exchange notes this is the same timeframe included in rules of another options exchange regarding opening quoting obligations of similarly situated market participants.
The proposed rule change does not change the majority of obligations currently imposed on LMMs. As discussed above, through other existing rules, LMMs are already subject to the majority of the obligations as revised. With respect to LMMs in Hybrid 3.0 classes, they are currently subject to continuous quoting obligations which had previously not been codified in the rules. While the proposed rule change amends these obligations, the proposed obligations are identical to the continuous quoting obligations of LMMs in Hybrid classes and DPMs, who serve substantially similar functions). The Exchange believes that subjecting LMMs in Hybrid 3.0 classes to the same continuous quoting obligations as LMMs in Hybrid classes (and DPMs) will promote compliance by LMMs and simplify surveillance processes for the Exchange when determining compliance with these obligations. Additionally, current rules applicable to LMMs in Hybrid classes and DPMs provide an appropriate balance between the benefits for and burdens imposed on them, and the Exchange believes the proposed rule change provides the same appropriate balance to Hybrid 3.0 LMMs, who serve substantially similar functions as Hybrid LMMs and DPMs. Thus, any additional obligations imposed on LMMs are de minimis and will not be burdensome. Because the proposed rule change does not materially change the benefits or obligations of LMMs, the Exchange believes the rules continue to provide an appropriate balance between LMM benefits and obligations (as they do for Hybrid LMMs and DPMs) and thus promote just and equitable principles of trade.
Further, the Exchange believes the proposed revisions to the descriptions of the Off-Floor DPM and Off-/On-Floor LMM programs will make it easier to read and understand this program, including when Off-Floor DPMs and Off/On-Floor LMMs may be appointed by the Exchange and how obligations and benefits are applied when appointments pursuant to the Program have been made. This clarity will benefit investors and promote compliance with the program. The Exchange believes making this program available to classes in which there is an Off-Floor LMM and Hybrid 3.0 classes, in addition to classes in which there is an Off-Floor DPM and Hybrid classes only, is reasonable given the similar roles of LMMs and DPMs and may result in additional liquidity in those classes.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes to eliminate obsolete provisions, including those related to individual LMMs, SMMs, an expired pilot program, the Old Linkage Plan, and strike price interval, bid/ask differential and quote continuity requirements, will protect investors by simplifying the rules and eliminating potential confusion that may result from inclusion of duplicative and outdated rules. With respect to strike price interval, bid/ask differential and quote continuity requirements, as discussed above, other existing rules address those requirements and supersede the language regarding these topics included (and proposed to be deleted) in Rules 5.8 and 24.9, thus rendering this language outdated and unnecessary. The Exchange will continue to impose these requirements in the manner it does today, consistent with the provisions in the other existing rules, and thus the proposed rule change has no impact on how the Exchange imposes these requirements.
The Exchange believes that the nonsubstantive, technical changes proposed throughout the Rules will simplify and provide more clarity and consistent organization in the Rules, which will benefit investors.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the changes to the descriptions of obligations of LMMs and DPMs also have no impact on competition, because LMMs and DPMs, as discussed above, generally are already subject to these obligations through existing rules. The proposed rule changes are intended to make the rules regarding LMM and DPM obligations more consistent with each other given the substantially similar functions of LMMs and DPMs and reduce duplication within the Rules. With respect to the proposed changes to certain obligations of LMMs and DPMs, the Exchange notes that these changes are not material and will not be burdensome. While the proposed rule change slightly modifies the opening quoting obligations of LMMs and DPMs, the Exchange believes the modified obligation still requires LMMs and DPMs to promptly enter quotes to ensure an opening, and they must continue to submit quotes in response to a request from the Exchange. Therefore, the Exchange believes there is no
The proposed rule change regarding the Off-Floor DPM and On-Floor/Off-Floor LMM program merely enhances the description of this program for investors but has no impact on how the Exchange implements the program. The Exchange believes the proposed revisions to the descriptions of the Off-Floor DPM and Off-/On-Floor LMM programs will make it easier to read and understand this program, including when Off-Floor DPMs and Off/On-Floor LMMs may be appointed by the Exchange and how obligations and benefits are applied when appointments pursuant to the Program have been made. This clarity will benefit investors and promote compliance with the program. Additionally, making this program available to classes in which there is an Off-Floor LMM and Hybrid 3.0 classes, in addition to classes in which there is an Off-Floor DPM and Hybrid classes only, may result in additional liquidity in those classes.
The nonsubstantive, technical changes and deletion of obsolete rule provisions have no impact on competition and are intended only to simplify, make consistent and eliminate potential confusion within the rules.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Alaska (FEMA-4257-DR), dated 02/17/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 02/17/2016, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14635B and for economic injury is 14636B.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Oregon (FEMA-4258-DR), dated 02/17/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 02/17/2016, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14637B and for economic injury is 14638B.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day Notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is publishing this notice to comply with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), which requires agencies to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before March 28, 2016.
Comments should refer to the information collection by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to:
Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7030
The collected information is submitted by small business concerns seeking certification as a qualified HUBZone small business. SBA uses the information to verify a concern's eligibility for the HUBZone programs, to complied a database of qualified small business concerns, as well as for the re-certification and examination of certified HUBZone small business concerns. Finally SBA uses the information to prepare reports for the Executive and legislative branches.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Alabama dated 02/18/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Alabama, Mississippi.
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Notice of a renewal of an existing computer matching program that will expire on March 31, 2016.
In accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act, as amended, this notice announces a renewal of an existing computer matching program that we are currently conducting with Fiscal Service.
We will file a report of the subject matching program with the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives; and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The matching program will be effective as indicated below.
Interested parties may comment on this notice by either telefaxing to (410) 966-0869 or writing to the Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, 617 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401. All comments received will be available for public inspection at this address.
The Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, as shown above.
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Public Law (Pub. L.) 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) by describing the conditions under which computer matching involving the Federal government could be performed and adding certain protections for persons applying for, and receiving, Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such persons.
The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other Federal, State, or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to:
(1) Negotiate written agreements with the other agency or agencies participating in the matching programs;
(2) Obtain approval of the matching agreement by the Data Integrity Boards of the participating Federal agencies;
(3) Publish notice of the computer matching program in the
(4) Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;
(5) Notify applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching; and
(6) Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying a person's benefits or payments.
We have taken action to ensure that all of our computer matching programs comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended.
SSA and the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service.
The purpose of this matching program is to allow Fiscal Service to disclose ownership of Savings Securities to us. This disclosure will provide us with information necessary to verify an individual's self-certification of his or her financial status to determine eligibility for low-income subsidy assistance (Extra Help) in the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit program established under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-173).
The legal authority for this agreement is 1860D-4 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395W-114), which requires us to verify the eligibility of an individual who seeks to be considered as an Extra Help eligible individual under the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit program and who self-certifies his or her income, resources, and family size.
Fiscal Service and we will execute this agreement in compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, and the regulations and guidance promulgated thereunder.
The individuals covered under this agreement will be those who self-certify financial status for low-income subsidy assistance (Extra Help) in the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit program established under the Medicare
We will provide Fiscal Service with a finder file consisting of Social Security Numbers (SSNs) extracted from our Medicare Database (MDB) File System. The MDB File System is a repository of Medicare applicant and beneficiary information related to Medicare Part A, Part B, Medicare Advantage Part C, and Medicare Part D. We may disclose file data from the MDB System pursuant to the “Medicare Part D and Part D Subsidy File” (60-0321), fully published at 71
Fiscal Service will match the SSNs in our finder file with the SSNs in Fiscal Service Savings Securities Registration Systems and return the formatted comparison file. These records reside in the systems of records Treasury/BPD.002, “United States Savings-Type Securities Treasury/BPD” and Treasury/BPD.008, “Retail Treasury Securities Access Application—Treasury/BPD” fully published at 73
For definitive records (
For book entry records (
The effective date of this matching program is April 1, 2016, provided that the following notice periods have lapsed: 30 days after publication of this notice in the
Notice is hereby given that the Department of State proposes to amend an existing system of records, Protocol Records, State-33, pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-130, Appendix I.
This system of records will be effective on April 6, 2016, unless we receive comments that will result in a contrary determination.
Any persons interested in commenting on the amended system of records may do so by writing to the Director; Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; Department of State, SA-2; 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-8100.
John Hackett, Director; Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; Department of State, SA-2; 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-8100, or at
The Department of State proposes that the current system will retain the name “Protocol Records” (previously published at 78 FR 54945). The information in this system of records is an accounting of those U.S. Government officials receiving gifts and decorations from foreign governments and to record for historical, organizational, and logistical purposes the names of the individuals applying to participate, invited to, supporting, and attending official Department of State functions or other events co-sponsored with the Federal Government or other partners, and to verify individuals nominated as a diplomatic representative on behalf of a foreign government. The proposed system will include modifications to the following sections: System location, Categories of individuals, Categories of records, Purpose, Routine Uses, Safeguards, System managers, and administrative updates.
The Department's report was filed with the Office of Management and Budget. The amended system description, “Protocol Records, State-33,” will read as set forth below.
Protocol Records.
Unclassified and Classified.
Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20520. Abroad at U.S. embassies, U.S. consulates general, and U.S. consulates; U.S. missions; Department of State annexes; various field and regional offices throughout the United States. Within a government cloud, implemented by the Department of State and provided by a cloud-based software as a service (SaaS) provider.
Individuals covered by this system include those receiving gifts and decorations from foreign governments; individuals invited to and supporting official Department of State functions or other events co-sponsored with the federal government or other partners; applicants for participation and attendees of Department of State conferences or other events co-sponsored with the federal government or other partners; individuals who are part of foreign delegations; individuals working at foreign embassies, missions and organizations; and nominees for foreign ambassadorships to the United States.
Records in this system include descriptions of gifts and decorations received from foreign governments; donors; guest lists; type of function; sample invitations; contact information, address and occupation; biographical information (this includes, but is not limited to: Names, nationalities and citizenship, résumés,
22 U.S.C. 2621, 22 U.S.C. 2625, 22 U.S.C. 4301
The information in this system of records is an accounting of those U.S. Government officials receiving gifts and decorations from foreign governments and to record for historical, organizational, and logistical purposes the names of the individuals applying to participate, invited to, supporting, and attending official Department of State functions or other events co-sponsored with the Federal Government or other partners, and to verify individuals nominated as a diplomatic representative on behalf of a foreign government.
The information contained in these records may be shared with:
(a) The Executive Office of the President; Congress; and other government agencies having statutory or other lawful authority to maintain such information.
(b) A contractor of the Department having need for the information in the performance of the contract, but not operating a system of records within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552a(m);
(c) Nongovernmental organizations, individuals, and panels to review applications and otherwise aid in the selection of participants in Department of State conferences and related functions;
(d) The news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief of Mission or Bureau Assistant Secretary who supervises the office responsible for the outreach effort, provided that the approving official determines that there is legitimate public interest in the information disclosed, except to the extent that release of the information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(e) Foreign governments where there is a need to verify the information provided for their delegates;
(f) Other Federal, State, and Local Governments for uses within their statutory missions, which may include law enforcement, transportation and border security, critical infrastructure protection, and fraud prevention; and
(g) Other individuals and organizations applying to, invited to, attending, or supporting a given conference, provided that the subject of the information opts-in to such sharing.
The Department of State publishes periodically in the
Electronic and hard copy media.
By an individual name.
All users are given cyber security awareness training which covers the procedures for handling Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) information, including personally identifiable information (PII). Annual refresher training is mandatory. In addition, all Foreign Service and Civil Service employees and those Locally Engaged Staff who handle PII are required to take the Foreign Service Institute distance learning course, PA 459, instructing employees on privacy and security requirements, including the rules of behavior for handling PII and the potential consequences if it is handled improperly.
Access to the Department of State, its annexes and posts abroad is controlled by security guards and admission is limited to those individuals possessing a valid identification card or individuals under proper escort. All paper records containing personal information are maintained in secured file cabinets in restricted areas, access to which is limited to authorized personnel only. Access to computerized files is password-protected and under the direct supervision of the system manager. The system manager has the capability of printing audit trails of access from the computer media, thereby permitting regular and ad hoc monitoring of computer usage. When it is determined that a user no longer needs access, the user account is disabled.
Before being granted access to Protocol Records, a user must first be granted access to the Department of State computer system. Remote access to the Department of State network from non-Department owned systems is authorized only to unclassified systems and only through a Department approved access program. Remote access to the network is configured with the Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-07-16 security requirements which include but are not limited to two-factor authentication and time out function. All Department of State employees and contractors with authorized access have undergone a thorough background security investigation.
The safeguards in the following paragraphs apply only to records that are maintained in cloud systems. All cloud systems that provide IT services and process Department of State information must be: (1) Provisionally authorized to operate by the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP), and (2) specifically authorized by the Department of State Authorizing Official and Senior Agency Official for Privacy. Only information that conforms with Department-specific definitions for Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) low or moderate categorization are permissible for cloud usage. Specific security measures and safeguards will depend on the FISMA categorization of the information in a given cloud system. In accordance with Department policy, systems that process more sensitive information will require more stringent controls and review by Department cybersecurity experts prior to approval. Prior to operation, all Cloud systems must comply with applicable security measures that are outlined in FISMA, FedRAMP, OMB regulations, NIST Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) and Special Publication (SP), and Department of State policy and standards.
All data stored in cloud environments categorized above a low FISMA impact risk level must be encrypted at rest and in-transit using a federally approved encryption mechanism. The encryption keys shall be generated, maintained, and controlled in a Department data center by the Department key management authority. Deviations from these encryption requirements must be approved in writing by the Authorizing Official.
Records are retired and destroyed in accordance with published Department of State Records Disposition Schedules as approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). More specific information may be obtained by writing to the following address: Director, Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; SA-2, Department of State; 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-8100.
Assistant Chief of Protocol for Management and Executive Director, Office of the Chief of Protocol, Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20520.
The Director of Major Events and Conferences Staff, Office of Major Events and Conferences, Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., Washington DC, 20520.
Individuals who have cause to believe that the Office of the Chief of Protocol or Office of Major Events and Conferences Staff may have records pertaining to him or her should write to the following address: Director; Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; SA-2 Department of State; 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-8100.
The individual must specify that he or she requests the records of the Office of the Chief of Protocol or the Office of Major Events and Conferences Staff to be checked. At a minimum, the individual must include the following: Name, date and place of birth, current mailing address and zip code, signature, and any other information helpful in identifying the record.
Individuals who wish to gain access to or amend records pertaining to themselves should write to the Director; Office of Information Programs and Services (address above).
(See above).
These records contain information collected directly from: The individual who is the subject of these records; employers and public references; other officials in the Department of State; other government agencies; foreign governments; and other public and professional institutions possessing relevant information.
None.
The County of Greenville, S.C. (County), a non-operating Class III rail carrier and political subdivision of the State of South Carolina, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to acquire from Greenville County Economic Development Corporation (GCEDC) approximately 3.29 miles of rail-banked line between milepost AJK 585.34 in East Greenville, S.C., and milepost AJK 588.63 in Greenville, S.C. (the Line), and to acquire GCEDC's residual common carrier obligation on the Line.
According to the County, it has reached an agreement with GCEDC pursuant to which, upon the effectiveness of this transaction, GCEDC will transfer to the County the entirety of its interest in the Line, including its residual common carrier obligation. The end result will be that all of GCEDC's ownership rights and responsibilities in the Line will be transferred to the County and remain rail-banked.
The County states that the proposed acquisition will not involve any provision or agreement between GCEDC and the County that would limit future interchange with a third-party connecting carrier.
The transaction may be consummated on or after March 13, 2016 (30 days after the notice of exemption was filed).
The County certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in its becoming a Class I or Class II rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than March 4, 2016 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35997, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy must be served on William A. Mullins, Baker & Miller PLLC, 2401 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20037.
According to the County, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Olympia & Belmore Railroad, Inc. (OBRR), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to lease from BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), and to operate, approximately 13.06 miles of rail consisting of the following: (1) 5.50 miles of track between milepost 9.07 near Olympia, Wa., and milepost 14.57 near Belmore, Wa., in Thurston County, Wa.; (2) incidental overhead trackage rights over approximately 7.56 miles of Union Pacific Railroad Company track between East Olympia, Wa., and Olympia, Wa.; and (3) joint use of terminal trackage at Olympia, Wa., pursuant to a lease agreement (Agreement) dated February 12, 2016.
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
As required under 49 CFR 1150.43(h)(1), OBRR has disclosed in its verified notice that the subject Agreement contains an interchange commitment that affects interchange with carriers other than BNSF at the interchange point of East Olympia, Wa. OBRR has provided additional information regarding the interchange commitment as required by 49 CFR 1150.43(h).
OBRR certifies that the projected annual revenues do not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier and would not exceed $5 million.
The transaction may be consummated on or after March 13, 2016 (30 days after the notice of exemption was filed). If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions to stay must be filed no later than March 4, 2016 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35999, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on applicant's representative, Eric M. Hocky, Clark Hill, PLC, One Commerce Square, 2005 Market Street, Suite 1000, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Genesee & Wyoming Inc. (GWI), a publicly traded noncarrier holding company, has filed a verified notice of exemption pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) to continue in control of Olympia & Belmore Railroad, Inc. (OBRR), a noncarrier, upon OBRR's becoming a Class III railroad.
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
This transaction may be consummated on March 13, 2016, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice of exemption was filed).
GWI notes that it currently controls, directly or indirectly, two Class II carriers and 105 Class III carriers operating in the United States.
GWI represents that: (1) None of the railroads controlled by GWI would connect with the line being leased and operated by OBRR; (2) the continuance in control is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would connect the line to be operated by OBRR with the rail lines of any carriers in GWI's corporate family; and (3) the transaction does not involve a Class I rail carrier. The proposed transaction is therefore exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323 pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2).
GWI states that the proposed transaction will allow OBRR to take advantage of the administrative, financial, marketing and operational support that GWI and its existing subsidiary railroads can provide, thus promoting the ability of OBRR to provide safe and efficient service to their shippers.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. As a condition to the use of this exemption, any employees adversely affected by this transaction will be protected by the conditions set forth in
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke would not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than March 4, 2016 (at least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36000 must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on applicant's representative, Eric M. Hocky, Clark Hill, PLC, One Commerce Square, 2005 Market Street, Suite 1000, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Ninety-Fifth RTCA Special Committee 159 meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the Ninety-Fifth RTCA Special Committee 159 meeting.
The meeting will be held March 7-11, 2016 from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA Inc. Conference Room, 1150 18th NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC Tel: (202) 330-0680.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 159. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of the RTCA Program Management Committee meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the RTCA Program Management Committee meeting.
The meeting will be held March 17, 2016 from 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel: (202) 330-0680.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the RTCA Program Management Committee. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Request for public comments.
Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(d), notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from Berlin Regional Airport in Milan, NH to dispose of a parcel of land approximately 7.0 acres at Berlin Regional Airport on Milan, NH.
The subject parcel is currently undeveloped and is not contiguous to the airport proper. The land is physically separated from the main airport property by State Route 16 and has no aviation development potential. The airport has been approached by the abutting land owner to purchase the property to expand his commercial property. The funds from the sale of the property, which has been valued at Fair Market Value, will be deposited into the Airport's dedicated fund and will be used for continued operation and maintenance of the airport.
Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2016.
You may send comments using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Interested persons may inspect the request and supporting documents by contacting the FAA at the address listed under
Mr. Jorge E. Panteli, Compliance and Land Use Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration New England Region Airports Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts, Telephone 781-238-7618.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Seventeenth RTCA Special Committee 227 Meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the Seventeenth RTCA Special Committee 227 meeting.
The meeting will be held March 15-17, 2016 from 9:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA Inc. Conference Room, 1150 18th, NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, Tel: (202) 330-0680.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 227. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Eighty-Fourth RTCA Special Committee 147 Meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the Eighty-Fourth RTCA Special Committee 147 meeting.
The meeting will be held March 15-17, 2016 from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at Drury Inn and Suites Phoenix, 2335 W. Pinnacle Peak Rd, Phoenix, AZ, 85027, Tel: (202) 330-0680.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 147. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Sixty-Fifth RTCA Special Committee 186 Meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the Sixty-Fifth RTCA Special Committee 186 meeting.
The meeting will be held March 8-11, 2016 from 9 a.m.-1 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA Inc. Conference Room, 1150 18th NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, Tel: (202) 330-0680.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 186. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Thirty-Ninth RTCA Special Committee 224 Meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the Thirty-Ninth RTCA Special Committee 224 meeting.
The meeting will be held March 10, 2016 from 10:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA Inc. Conference Room, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, Tel: (202) 330-0680.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 224. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Forty-Third RTCA Special Committee 206 meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the Forty-Third RTCA Special Committee 206 meeting.
The meeting will be held March 7-11, 2016 from 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at Delta Airlines Headquarters, 1010 Delta Boulevard Atlanta, Georgia 30354, Tel: (202) 330-0680.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 206. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Request for public comments.
Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(d), notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from Beverly Airport in Beverly, MA to change the use of a certain parcel of land and associated building from Aeronautical to Non-Aeronautical Land for future non-aeronautical revenue generation at Beverly Airport in Beverly, MA.
The subject parcel contains Building #45 and 19 automobile parking spaces which is currently vacant and is landside with no access to aviation areas. The building is in poor condition. The City of Beverly, working with the Beverly Airport Commission, will renovate the building and in the near term, serve as office space for a City Department. Space within the building will also be prepared for future lease to generate non-aeronautical revenue for the airport. The cost to renovate the building was estimated at a minimum of approximately $300,000 and will serve as the in-lieu lease payment over the next 10 years. The area for non-aeronautical revenue generation for the airport will be derived from leasing of this space by the airport and those proceeds will be deposited into the Airport's dedicated fund and will be used for continued operation and maintenance of the airport. At the end of the 10 year lease with the City, the building will be available for future non-aeronautical lease revenue generation for the airport.
Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2016.
You may send comments using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Interested persons may inspect the request and supporting documents by contacting the FAA at the address listed under
Mr. Jorge E. Panteli, Compliance and Land Use Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration New England Region Airports Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts, Telephone 781-238-7618.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before March 17, 2016.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-2573 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Brent Hart (202) 267-4034, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Docket No.: FAA-2016-2573.
Petitioner: The General Electric Company.
Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: 21.6(a) and 21.9(c)(1).
Description of Relief Sought: The General Electric Company (GE) seeks relief from the requirements of §§ 21.6(a) and 21.9(c)(1) to permit relief from the requirement to require the manufacturer to hold a type certificate or licensing agreement from the holder to manufacturer the product, and meet the requirements of 21.6, subpart F or G of this part, as well as relief from the requirement that a person may not sell or represent an article as suitable for installation on an aircraft type-certificated under part 21 unless that article was declared surplus by the U.S. Armed Forces and was intended for use on that aircraft model by the U.S. Armed Forces.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Intent.
The FHWA is issuing this notice of cancellation to advise the public that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed SR 29 from Oil Well Road to SR 82 in Collier County, Florida will no longer be prepared due to changes in the proposed project. This is formal cancellation of the Notice of Intent that was published in the
Ms. Cathy Kendall, Senior Environmental Specialist, Federal Highway Administration, 3500 Financial Plaza, Suite 400, Tallahassee, FL 32312; Telephone: 850-553-2225;
The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was for improving SR 29 from an existing two-lane to a four-lane facility. The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS is rescinded.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
CORRECTION: Tribal Transit Program announcement of project selections.
This notice is providing Table 1 (Fiscal Years 2014-2015 Tribal Transit Program Discretionary Project Selections) that was inadvertently omitted from the notice that was published on February 22, 2016, titled “Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Public Transportation on Indian Reservations Program Project Selections.”
Successful applicants should contact the appropriate FTA Regional office for information regarding applying for the funds or program-specific information. A list of Regional offices, along with a list of tribal liaisons can be found at
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of request for comments.
The Federal Transit Administration invites public comment about its intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval to renew the following information collection:
The Federal Transit Administration's Research, Development, Demonstration, Deployment, Cooperative Research, Technical Assistance, Standards Development, and Human Resources and Training programs are authorized at 49 U.S.C. 5312, 5313, 5314, and 5322 and collectively seek to develop solutions that improve public transportation. Its primary goals are to increase transit ridership, improve safety and emergency preparedness, improve operating efficiencies, protect the environment, promote energy independence, and provide transit research leadership; develop and conduct workforce development activities, training and educational programs for Federal, State, and local transportation employees, United States citizens, and foreign nationals engaged or to be engaged in Government-aid relating to public transportation work; and to sponsor development of voluntary and consensus-based standards to more effectively and efficiently provide transit service, as well as support the improved administration of Federal transit funds. To accomplish this, FTA funds projects to support research and development, demonstration, deployments of various technologies and operational models for transit; a national cooperative research program, a national training institute, national technical assistance centers, and transit workforce development programs. The
Comments must be submitted before March 28, 2016. A comment to OMB is most effective, if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Tia Swain, Office of Administration, Office of Management Planning, (202) 366-0354.
All written comments must refer to the docket number that appears at the top of this document and be submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FTA Desk Officer.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Buy America Waiver.
This notice provides NHTSA's finding with respect to a request from the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP) to waive the requirements of Buy America. NHTSA finds that a non-availability waiver is appropriate for OHSP to purchase twenty foreign-made motorcycles using Federal grant funds because there are no suitable motorcycles produced in the United States for motorcyclist safety training purposes.
The effective date of this waiver is March 14, 2016. Written comments regarding this notice may be submitted to NHTSA and must be received on or before: March 14, 2016.
Written comments may be submitted using any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For program issues, contact Barbara Sauers, Office of Regional Operations and Program Delivery, NHTSA (phone: 202-366-0144). For legal issues, contact Andrew DiMarsico, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (phone: 202-366-5263). You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
This notice provides NHTSA's finding that a waiver of the Buy America requirements, 23 U.S.C. 313, is appropriate for Michigan's OHSP to purchase twenty motorcycles for motorcyclist safety training using grant funds authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402 and 405(f). Section 402 funds are available for use by state highway safety programs that, among other things, reduce or prevent injuries and deaths resulting from speeding motor vehicles, driving while impaired by alcohol and or drugs, motorcycle accidents, school bus accidents, and unsafe driving behavior. 23 U.S.C. 402(a). Section 405(f) funds are available for use by state highway safety programs to implement effective programs to reduce the number of single and multi-vehicle crashes involving motorcyclists that, among other things, include supporting training of motorcyclists and the purchase of motorcycles. 23 U.S.C. 405(f)(1) & (4).
Buy America provides that NHTSA “shall not obligate any funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2097) or [Title 23] and administered by the Department of Transportation, unless steel, iron, and manufactured products used in such project are produced in the United States.” 23 U.S.C. 313. However, NHTSA may waive those requirements if: “(1) Their application would be inconsistent with the public interest; (2) such materials and products are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality; or (3) the inclusion of domestic material will increase the cost of the overall project contract by more than 25 percent.” 23 U.S.C. 313(b); 49 CFR 1.95(f).
Recently, NHTSA published its finding that a public interest waiver of the Buy America requirements is appropriate for a manufactured product whose purchase price is $5,000 or less, excluding a motor vehicle, when such product is purchased using Federal grant funds administered under Chapter 4 of Title 23 of the United States Code.
Michigan's OHSP seeks both a non-availability waiver—that the product is not produced in the United States in sufficient quantities—and a cost waiver—that the purchase of comparable domestic made motorcycles are 25 percent greater than the cost of foreign made motorcycles—to purchase twenty motorcycles for motorcyclist training purposes. It seeks to purchase a combination of the following make, model and model year motorcycles and unit price: 2016 Suzuki TU250X ($4,399); 2015 Yamaha V-Star 250 ($4,340); 2016 Yamaha TW200 ($4,590); 2015 Honda Grom ($3,199); and 2016 Honda Rebel 250 ($4,190). Michigan asserts that a diverse training motorcycle fleet makes it easier to match novice riders to training motorcycles they can ride safely and comfortably during the training sessions. It notes that the Motorcycle Safety Foundation's (MSF) level one classroom curriculum includes a discussion of motorcycle types and styles, and how to choose a motorcycle that matches a rider's body type and riding experience. Michigan adds that the two outdoor sessions of its training program are 5 hours each, which is long enough that the student's comfort on the motorcycle becomes a significant aspect of their training experience. The total purchase price for all twenty motorcycles ranges from $63,980-$91,800. This training program is designed to improve traffic safety by assuring that individuals seeking to obtain a Michigan motorcycle operator's license are properly trained in basic motorcycle operation and safety.
OHSP requires that its training motorcycles meet certain specifications. The engine displacement must be no more than 250 cubic centimeters (CC). Michigan, however, is unable to identify any motorcycles with this specification that meet the Buy America requirements. OHSP researched motorcycle models made by several American motorcycle manufacturers: Harley-Davidson, Inc., Victory Motorcycles, Indian Motorcycles, ATK Motorcycles and Cleveland CycleWerks. Harley-Davidson produces a 500 CC motorcycle called the Street 500, with a MSRP of $6,849. Victory Motorcycles and Indian Motorcycles produce motorcycles with a much heavier and larger engine displacement than 500 CC, with the lowest MSRP of $12,499 for the Victory Vegas 8-ball motorcycle and the lowest MSRP of $10,999 for the Indian Scout. OHSP reached out to ATK Motorcycles, a domestic manufacturer located in Utah, and determined that ATK Motorcycles are not currently produced or available for sale. OHSP also found that Cleveland CycleWerks manufactures motorcycles in China, with minimal assemblage in the United States.
Michigan states that its fleet of training motorcycles consists of motorcycles with less than 500 CC engine displacement and states that its practice is to use motorcycles with 250 CC engine displacement or less to enhance safety and minimize risk to participants of the training course. OHSP was unable to find a motorcycle that meets its requirements for training motorcycles that also meets the Buy America requirements. OHSP seeks to use the aforementioned motorcycles for its 2016 motorcycle safety training program because they are smaller motorcycles with smaller engine displacement (250 CC). These motorcycles have universal applicability to all rider characteristics. For example, tall and short individuals can train with these smaller motorcycles; whereas, shorter individuals would have difficulty riding taller motorcycles, which, in general, have larger engine displacement. Moreover, motorcycles with smaller engine displacement are lighter and have less engine power that permit novice riders, or those with smaller physical stature, the ability to maneuver the motorcycles with limited risk of the motorcycle overpowering the riders causing injury. While some larger motorcycles (500 CC) are suitable for some motorcycle riders to train on, these motorcycles may overwhelm novice riders with their engine power and weight. Motorcycles with larger engine displacements do not have the universal applicability of the 250 CC motorcycles and would limit the effectiveness of Michigan's training courses. The smaller motorcycles will enable Michigan to continue to have effective motorcycle safety training courses that further the goal of section 402 and 405 to reduce motorcycle crashes and develop effective motorcyclist training for all its constituents.
NHTSA is unaware of any other domestic motorcycle manufacturers than Harley-Davidson, Victory, and Indian. As these manufacturers do not sell a motorcycle that meets the requirements for Michigan's motorcycle safety training purposes, a Buy America
In light of the above discussion, and pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 313(b)(3), NHTSA finds that it is appropriate to grant a waiver from the Buy America requirements to Michigan to purchase twenty motorcycles for training purposes. Michigan seeks both a non-availability waiver—where the product is not produced in the United States in sufficient quantities—and a cost basis waiver—where the purchase of a comparable domestic made motorcycle is 25 percent greater than the cost of foreign a made motorcycle. We have construed this as a non-availability waiver request because a cost basis waiver is not appropriate when there is no comparable domestic product against which to compare the price of the foreign product. Here, no domestic manufacturer produces a motorcycle with 250 CC engine displacement. As smaller engine displacement is common for training purposes and no American manufacturer produces motorcycles with this specification, a non-availability waiver is appropriate.
This waiver applies to Michigan and all other States seeking to use section 402 and 405 funds to purchase the make and model motorcycles above and for the purposes mentioned herein. This waiver will continue through fiscal year 2016 and will allow the purchase of these items as required for Michigan's OHSP and its motorcyclist training programs. Accordingly, this waiver will expire at the conclusion of fiscal year 2016 (September 30, 2016). In accordance with the provisions of Section 117 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy of Users Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-244, 122 Stat. 1572), NHTSA is providing this notice as its finding that a waiver of the Buy America requirements is appropriate for certain Suzuki, Yamaha and Honda motorcycles.
Written comments on this finding may be submitted through any of the methods discussed above. NHTSA may reconsider these findings, if through comment, it learns of and can confirm the existence of a comparable domestically made product to the items granted a waiver.
This finding should not be construed as an endorsement or approval of any products by NHTSA or the U.S. Department of Transportation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers.
23 U.S.C. 313; Pub. L. 110-161.
Office of the Secretary of Transportation, DOT.
Notice of funding opportunity.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113, December 18, 2015) (“FY 2016 Appropriations Act” or the “Act”) appropriated $500 million to be awarded by the Department of Transportation (“DOT” or the “Department”) for National Infrastructure Investments. This appropriation is similar, but not identical, to the program funded and implemented pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “Recovery Act”) known as the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, or “TIGER Discretionary Grants,” program. Because of the similarity in program structure, DOT will continue to refer to the program as “TIGER Discretionary Grants.” Funds for the FY 2016 TIGER program (“TIGER FY 2016”) are to be awarded on a competitive basis for projects that will have a significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area, or a region. The purpose of this final notice is to solicit applications for TIGER Discretionary Grants.
Applications must be submitted by 8:00 p.m. EDT on April 29, 2016.
Applications must be submitted through Grants.gov.
For further information concerning this notice, please contact the TIGER Discretionary Grants program staff via email at
This notice is substantially similar to the final notice published for the TIGER Discretionary Grants program in the
Since the TIGER Discretionary Grants program was first created, $4.6 billion has been awarded for capital investments in surface transportation infrastructure over seven rounds of competitive grants. The TIGER Discretionary Grants program seeks to award projects that advance DOT's strategic goals for the nation's transportation system found in DOT's Strategic Plan for FY 2014-FY 2018 (
Throughout the TIGER program, TIGER Discretionary Grants awards have supported innovative projects, including multimodal and
The FY 2016 TIGER program will fund transformative projects of all eligible types, including projects that promote Ladders of Opportunity, to the extent permitted by law. The FY 2014 TIGER and FY 2015 TIGER programs gave consideration to projects that sought to improve access to reliable, safe, and affordable transportation for disconnected communities in urban, suburban, and rural areas. This included, but was not limited to, capital projects that better connected people to jobs, removed physical barriers to access, and strengthened communities through neighborhood redevelopment. The FY 2015 and 2016 TIGER programs clearly identify this concept as Ladders of Opportunity. Ladders of Opportunity projects may increase connectivity to employment, education, services and other opportunities; support workforce development; or contribute to community revitalization, particularly for disadvantaged groups: Low income groups, persons with visible and hidden disabilities, elderly individuals, and minority persons and populations.
The FY 2016 Appropriations Act appropriated $500 million to be awarded by DOT for the TIGER Discretionary Grants program. The FY 2016 TIGER Discretionary Grants are for capital investments in surface transportation infrastructure and are to be awarded on a competitive basis for projects that will have a significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area, or a region. The Act also allows DOT to use a small portion of the $500 million for oversight and administration of grants and credit assistance made under the TIGER Discretionary Grants program. If this solicitation does not result in the award and obligation of all available funds, DOT may publish additional solicitations.
The FY 2016 Appropriations Act specifies that TIGER Discretionary Grants may not be less than $5 million and not greater than $100 million, except that for projects located in rural areas (as defined in Section C.3) the minimum TIGER Discretionary Grant size is $1 million.
Pursuant to the FY 2016 Appropriations Act, no more than 20 percent of the funds made available for TIGER Discretionary Grants (or $100 million) may be awarded to projects in a single State. The Act also directs that not less than 20 percent of the funds provided for TIGER Discretionary Grants (or $100 million) shall be used for projects located in rural areas. Further, DOT must take measures to ensure an equitable geographic distribution of grant funds, an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban and rural areas, and investment in a variety of transportation modes.
The FY 2016 Appropriations Act requires that FY 2016 TIGER funds are only available for obligation through September 30, 2019. Obligation occurs when a selected applicant and DOT enter into a written grant agreement and is generally after the applicant has satisfied applicable administrative requirements, including transportation planning and environmental review requirements. No FY 2016 TIGER funds may be expended (actually paid out) after September 30, 2024. As part of the review and selection process described in Section E.2., DOT will consider whether a project is ready to proceed with an obligation of grant funds from DOT within the statutory time provided. No waiver is possible for these deadlines.
The FY 2016 Appropriations Act allows for up to 20 percent of available funds (or $100 million) to be used by the Department to pay the subsidy and administrative costs for a project receiving credit assistance under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998 (“TIFIA”) program, if that use of the FY 2016 TIGER funds would further the purposes of the TIGER Discretionary Grants program.
Recipients of prior TIGER Discretionary Grants may apply for funding to support additional phases of a project awarded funds in earlier rounds of this program. However, to be competitive, the applicant should demonstrate the extent to which the previously funded project phase has been able to meet estimated project schedules and budget, as well as the ability to realize the benefits expected for the project.
A relevant DOT modal administration will administer each TIGER Discretionary Grant, pursuant to a grant agreement between the TIGER Discretionary Grant recipient and that modal administration.
To be selected for a TIGER Discretionary Grant, an applicant must be an Eligible Applicant and the project must be an Eligible Project.
Eligible Applicants for TIGER Discretionary Grants are State, local, and tribal governments, including U.S. territories, transit agencies, port authorities, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and other political subdivisions of State or local governments.
Multiple States or jurisdictions may submit a joint application and must identify a lead applicant as the primary point of contact, and also identify the primary recipient of the award. Each applicant in a joint application must be an Eligible Applicant. Joint applications must include a description of the roles and responsibilities of each applicant and must be signed by each applicant.
TIGER Discretionary Grants may be used for up to 80 percent of the costs of a project located in an urban area
DOT will consider the following funds or contributions as a local match for the purpose of this program, and as further described in Section F.1.v:
But DOT cannot consider the following funds or contributions as a local match:
i.
ii.
To the extent more than a
iii.
Applicants should be aware that, depending upon the relationship between project components and upon applicable Federal law, DOT funding of only some project components may make other project components subject to Federal requirements as described in Section F.2.
DOT strongly encourages applicants to identify in their applications the project components that have independent utility and separately detail costs and requested TIGER funding for those components. If the application identifies one or more independent project components, the application should clearly identify how each independent component addresses selection criteria and produces benefits on its own, in addition to describing how the full proposal of which the independent component is a part addresses selection criteria.
iv.
Applications must be submitted to Grants.gov. General information for submitting applications through Grants.gov can be found at
Applications must include the Standard Form 424 (Application for Federal Assistance), the Project Narrative, and any additional required attachments as specified by the instructions provided. Applicants should also complete and attach to their application the “TIGER 2016 Project Information” form available at
The Project Narrative (attachment to SF-424) must respond to the application requirements outlined below. The application must include information required for DOT to assess each of the criteria specified in Section E.1 (Criteria). Applicants must demonstrate the responsiveness of a project to any pertinent selection criteria with the most relevant information that they can provide, regardless of whether such information has been specifically requested, or identified, in this notice. An application should provide evidence of the feasibility of achieving project milestones, and of financial capacity and commitment in order to support project readiness.
An application should also include a description of how the project addresses the needs of the area, creates economic opportunity, and sparks community revitalization, particularly for disadvantaged groups.
DOT recommends that the project narrative adhere to the following basic outline and, in addition to a detailed statement of work, project schedule, and project budget, should include a table of contents, maps, and graphics as appropriate that make the information easier to review:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
The purpose of this recommended format is to ensure that applications clearly address the program requirements and make critical information readily apparent.
DOT recommends that the project narrative be prepared with standard formatting preferences (
DOT may not make a TIGER Discretionary Grant award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable DUNS and SAM requirements. If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the submission deadline, the application will not be considered. To submit an application through Grants.gov, applicants must:
i. Obtain a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number;
ii. Register with the System for Award Management (SAM) at
iii. Create a Grants.gov username and password; and
iv. The E-Business Point of Contact (POC) at the applicant's organization must respond to the registration email from Grants.gov and login at Grants.gov to authorize the applicant as the Authorized Organization Representative (AOR). Please note that there can be more than one AOR for an organization.
For information and instructions on each of these processes, please see instructions at
If an applicant is selected for an award, the applicant will be required to maintain an active SAM registration
i.
ii. Only applicants who comply with all submission deadlines described in this notice and electronically submit valid applications through Grants.gov will be eligible for award.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to make submissions in advance of the deadline. Please be aware that applicants must complete the Grants.gov registration process before submitting the final application, and that this process usually takes 2-4 weeks to complete. If interested parties experience difficulties at any point during the registration or application process, please call the Grants.gov Customer Support Hotline at 1-800-518-4726, Monday-Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. EDT.
iii.
Applicants experiencing technical issues with Grants.gov that are beyond the applicant's control must contact
a. Details of the technical issue experienced.
b. Screen capture(s) of the technical issue experienced along corresponding “Grant tracking number” (Grants.Gov).
c. The “Legal Business Name” for the applicant that was provided in the SF-424 or pre-application.
d. The AOR name submitted in the SF-424 (Grants.gov).
e. The DUNS number associated with the pre-application/application.
f. The Grants.gov or Pre-Application Help Desk Tracking Number.
To ensure a fair competition for limited discretionary funds, the following conditions are not valid reasons to permit late submissions: (1) Failure to complete the registration process before the deadline date; (2) failure to follow Grants.gov instructions on how to register and apply as posted on its Web site; (3) failure to follow all of the instructions in this notice of funding availability; and (4) technical issues experienced with the applicant's computer or information technology (IT) environment. After DOT staff review all of the information submitted and contacted the Grants.gov Help Desk to validate the technical issues reported, DOT staff will contact applicants to either approve or deny the request to submit a late application through Grants.gov. If the technical issues reported cannot be validated, the application will be rejected as untimely.
There is no specific set-aside funding solely for pre-construction activities
This section specifies the criteria that DOT will use to evaluate and award applications for TIGER Discretionary Grants. The criteria incorporate the statutory eligibility requirements for this program, which are specified in this notice as relevant. There are two categories of selection criteria, “Primary Selection Criteria” and “Secondary Selection Criteria.” Within each relevant selection criterion, applicants are encouraged to present in measurable terms how TIGER investment will lead to transformative change(s) in their community. Projects will also be evaluated for demonstrated project readiness, benefits and costs, and cost share.
Applications that do not demonstrate a likelihood of significant long-term benefits based on these criteria will not proceed in the evaluation process. DOT does not consider any primary selection criterion more important than the others. The primary selection criteria, which will receive equal consideration, are:
a. Safety. Improving the safety of U.S. transportation facilities and systems for all modes of transportation and users. DOT will assess the project's ability to reduce the number, rate, and consequences of surface transportation-related accidents, serious injuries, and fatalities among transportation users, including pedestrians, the project's contribution to the elimination of highway/rail grade crossings, and the project's contribution to preventing unintended releases of hazardous materials. DOT will consider the project's ability to foster a safe, connected, accessible transportation system for the multimodal movement of goods and people.
b. State of Good Repair. Improving the condition and resilience of existing transportation facilities and systems. DOT will assess whether and to what extent: (1) The project is consistent with relevant plans to maintain transportation facilities or systems in a state of good repair and address current and projected vulnerabilities; (2) if left unimproved, the poor condition of the asset will threaten future transportation network efficiency, mobility of goods or accessibility and mobility of people, or economic growth; (3) the project is appropriately capitalized up front and uses asset management approaches that optimize its long-term cost structure; (4) a sustainable source of revenue is available for operations and maintenance of the project; and (5) the project improves the transportation asset's ability to withstand probable occurrence or recurrence of an emergency or major disaster or other impacts of climate change. Additional consideration will be given to a project's contribution to improving the overall reliability of a multimodal transportation system that serves all users, and to projects that offer significant transformational improvements to the condition of existing transportation systems and facilities.
c. Economic Competitiveness. Contributing to the economic competitiveness of the United States over the medium- to long-term, revitalizing communities, and creating and preserving jobs. DOT will assess whether the project will (1) decrease transportation costs and improve access for Americans with transportation disadvantages through reliable and timely access to employment centers, education and training opportunities, and other basic needs of workers; (2) improve long-term efficiency, reliability or costs in the movement of workers or goods; (3) increase the economic productivity of land, capital, or labor at
d. Quality of Life. Increasing transportation choices and improving access to essential services for people in communities across the United States, particularly for disadvantaged groups. DOT will assess whether the project furthers the six “Livability Principles” developed by DOT with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities.
e. Environmental Sustainability. Improving energy efficiency, reducing dependence on oil, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving water quality, avoiding and mitigating environmental impacts and otherwise benefitting the environment. DOT will assess the project's ability to: (i) Reduce energy use and air or water pollution; (ii) avoid adverse environmental impacts to air or water quality, wetlands, and endangered species; or (iii) provide environmental benefits, such as brownfield redevelopment, ground water recharge in areas of water scarcity, wetlands creation or improved habitat connectivity, and stormwater mitigation, including green infrastructure. Applicants are encouraged to provide quantitative information, including baseline information that demonstrates how the project will reduce energy consumption, stormwater runoff, or achieve other benefits for the environment.
a. Innovation. Use of innovative strategies to pursue the long-term outcomes outlined above. DOT will also assess the extent to which the project uses innovative technology to pursue one or more of the long-term outcomes outlined above or to significantly enhance the operational performance of the transportation system. DOT will also assess the extent to which the project incorporates innovations in transportation funding and finance and leverages both existing and new sources of funding through both traditional and innovative means. Further, DOT will consider the extent to which the project utilizes innovative practices in contracting, congestion management, safety management, asset management, or long-term operations and maintenance. DOT is interested in projects that apply innovative strategies to improve the efficiency of project development or to improve project delivery.
b. Partnership. Demonstrating strong collaboration among a broad range of stakeholders, and the product of a robust, inclusive planning process.
(i) Jurisdictional and Stakeholder Collaboration. DOT will consider the extent to which projects involve multiple partners in project development and funding, such as State and local governments, other public entities, and/or private or nonprofit entities. DOT will also assess the extent to which the project application demonstrates collaboration among neighboring or regional jurisdictions to achieve national, regional, or metropolitan benefits. In the context of public-private partnerships, DOT will assess the extent to which partners are encouraged to ensure long-term asset performance, such as through pay-for-success approaches.
(ii) Disciplinary Integration. DOT will consider the extent to which projects include partnerships that bring together diverse transportation agencies and/or are supported, financially or otherwise, by non-transportation public agencies that are pursuing similar objectives. For example, DOT will give priority to transportation projects that are coordinated with economic development, housing, water infrastructure, and land use plans and policies or other public service efforts. Similarly, DOT will give priority to transportation projects that are coordinated with housing, social services, or education agencies. Projects that demonstrate a robust planning process—such as those conducted with DOT's various planning programs and initiatives, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Regional Planning Grants and Choice Neighborhood Planning Grants, or the Environmental Protection Agency's Brownfield Area-Wide Planning Pilot Program, as well as technical assistance programs focused on livability or economic development planning—will also be given priority.
For projects that receive funding in this round of TIGER, DOT must obligate funds by September 30, 2019, or the funding will expire. Therefore, DOT will assess every application to determine whether the project is likely to proceed to obligation by the statutory deadline (see
a. Technical Feasibility. The technical feasibility of the project should be demonstrated by engineering and design studies and activities; the development of design criteria and/or a basis of design; the basis for the cost estimate presented in the TIGER application, including the identification of contingency levels appropriate to its level of design; and any scope, schedule, and budget risk-mitigation measures. Applicants must include a detailed statement of work that focuses on the technical and engineering aspects of the project and describes in detail the project to be constructed.
b. Financial Feasibility. The viability and completeness of the project's financing package (assuming the availability of the requested TIGER Discretionary Grant funds) should be demonstrated including evidence of stable and reliable capital and (as appropriate) operating fund commitments sufficient to cover estimated costs; the availability of contingency reserves should planned capital or operating revenue sources not materialize; evidence of the financial condition of the project sponsor; and evidence of the grant recipient's ability to manage grants. The applicant must include a detailed project budget in this section of the application containing a breakdown of how the funds will be
c. Project Schedule. The applicant must include a detailed project schedule that includes all major project milestones—such as start and completion of environmental reviews and approvals; design; right of way acquisition; approval of plan, specification and estimate (PS&E); procurement; and construction- with sufficiently detailed information to demonstrate that:
(i) All necessary pre-construction activities will be complete to allow grant funds to be obligated no later than June 30, 2019, to give DOT reasonable assurance that the TIGER Discretionary Grant funds will be obligated sufficiently in advance of the September 30, 2019, statutory deadline, and that any unexpected delays will not put the funds at risk of expiring before they are obligated;
(ii) the project can begin construction quickly upon receipt of a TIGER Discretionary Grant, and that the grant funds will be spent steadily and expeditiously once construction starts; and
(iii) any applicant that is applying for a TIGER Discretionary Grant and does not own all of the property or right-of-way required to complete the project should provide evidence that the property and/or right-of-way acquisition can and will be completed expeditiously.
DOT may revoke any award of TIGER Discretionary Grant funds and award those funds to another project if the funds cannot be timely obligated or construction does not begin in accordance with the project schedule established in the grant agreement.
d. Required Approvals
(i) Environmental Permits and Reviews. An application for a TIGER Discretionary Grant must detail whether the project will significantly impact the natural, social and/or economic environment. The application should demonstrate receipt (or reasonably anticipated receipt) of all environmental approvals and permits necessary for the project to proceed to construction on the timeline specified in the project schedule and necessary to meet the statutory obligation deadline, including satisfaction of all Federal, State and local requirements and completion of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) process. Although Section C.3.iii (Project Components) of this notice encourages applicants to identify independent project components, those components may not be separable for the NEPA process. In such cases, the NEPA review for the independent project component may have to include evaluation of all project components as connected, similar, or cumulative actions, as detailed at 40 CFR 1508.25. The applicant should submit the information listed below with the application:
(1) Information about the NEPA status of the project. If the NEPA process is completed, an applicant must indicate the date of, and provide a Web site link or other reference to the final Categorical Exclusion, Finding of No Significant Impact or Record of Decision. If the NEPA process is underway but not complete, the application must detail the type of NEPA review underway, where the project is in the process, and indicate the anticipated date of completion. Applicants must provide a Web site link or other reference to copies of any NEPA documents prepared.
(2) Information on reviews by other agencies. An application for a TIGER Discretionary Grant must indicate whether the proposed project requires reviews or approval actions by other agencies,
(3) Environmental studies or other documents—preferably through a Web site link—that describe in detail known project impacts, and possible mitigation for those impacts.
(4) A description of discussions with the appropriate DOT modal administration field or headquarters office regarding compliance with NEPA and other applicable environmental reviews and approvals.
(ii) Legislative Approvals. The applicant should demonstrate receipt of state and local approvals on which the project depends. Additional support from relevant State and local officials is not required; however, an applicant should demonstrate that the project is broadly supported.
(iii) State and Local Planning. The planning requirements of the modal administration administering the TIGER project will apply.
e. Assessment of Project Risks and Mitigation Strategies. The applicant should identify the material risks to the project and the strategies that the lead
The applicant, to the extent they are unfamiliar with the Federal program, should contact DOT modal field or headquarters offices for information on what steps are pre-requisite to the obligation of Federal funds in order to ensure that their project schedule is reasonable and that there are no risks of delays in satisfying Federal requirements.
Contacts for the Federal Highway Administration Division offices—which are located in all 50 States, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico—can be found at
An applicant for TIGER Discretionary Grants is generally required to identify, quantify, and compare expected benefits and costs, subject to the following qualifications:
An applicant must prepare and submit an analysis of benefits and costs. The level of sophistication of the benefit-cost analysis (BCA) should be reasonably related to the size of the overall project and the amount of grant funds requested in the application. For smaller projects, DOT understands that a less detailed analysis for items such as surveys, travel demand forecasts, market forecasts, and statistical analyses is appropriate. For larger projects, DOT expects that applicants will provide a robust and detailed analysis of benefits and costs. Any subjective estimates of benefits and costs should be quantified, and the applicant should provide appropriate evidence to support their subjective estimates. Estimates of benefits should be presented in monetary terms whenever possible; if a monetary estimate is not possible, then at least one non-monetary quantitative estimate (in physical, non-monetary terms) should be provided. Examples of such benefits include:
However, an applicant should use qualitative measures to include benefits that cannot be readily monetized or quantified.
Depending on the level of sophistication of a BCA that is reasonably related to the size of an overall project, the lack of a useful analysis of expected project benefits and costs may be a basis for not selecting a project for award of a TIGER Discretionary Grant. However, DOT will use the results of the BCA review as one of several criteria considered during the TIGER Discretionary Grants evaluation process.
The
Spreadsheets supporting the benefit-cost analysis should be original Excel spreadsheets, not PDFs of those spreadsheets. Benefits should be presented, whenever possible, in a tabular form showing benefits and costs in each year for the useful life of the project. The application should include projections of costs, travel conditions, safety outcomes, and environmental impacts for both the build and no-build scenarios for the project for each year between the completion of the project and a point in time at least 20 years beyond the project's completion date or the lifespan of the project, whichever is closer to the present. The BCA should demonstrate how the benefits and costs of the proposed project are based on differences in the future values of these measures between the baseline or no-build scenario and with the proposed project in place. Benefits and costs should both be discounted to the year 2016, and calculations should be presented for discounted values of both the stream of benefits and the stream of costs. If the project has multiple components, each of which has independent utility, the benefits and costs of each component should be estimated and presented separately. The results of the benefit-cost analysis should be summarized in the Project Narrative section of the application itself, but the details should be presented in an attachment to the application if the full analysis cannot be included within the page limit for the project narrative.
BCA Flexibility for Tribal Governments: Based on feedback over previous rounds of TIGER, DOT recognizes that the benefit-cost analysis can be particularly burdensome on Tribal governments. Therefore, the Department is providing additional flexibility to Tribal governments for the purposes of this notice. At their discretion, Tribal applicants may elect to provide raw data to support the need for a project (such as crash rates, ridership estimates, and the number of people who will benefit from the project), without additional analysis. DOT will use this data to develop estimates (given the data provided) of benefits and costs. DOT will use these results as one of several criteria considered during the TIGER Discretionary Grants evaluation process. Examples of BCAs by successful Tribal applicants are available online at
The FY 2016 Appropriations Act directs DOT to prioritize projects that require a contribution of Federal funds to complete an overall financing package, and all projects can increase their competitiveness for purposes of the TIGER program by demonstrating significant non-Federal financial contributions. The applicant should clearly demonstrate the extent to which the project cannot be readily and efficiently completed without a TIGER Discretionary Grant, and describe the extent to which other sources of funds, including Federal, State, or local funding, may or may not be readily available for the project. The Department may consider the form of cost sharing presented in an application. Firm commitments of cash that indicate a complete project funding package and demonstrate local support for the project are more competitive than other
DOT reviews all eligible applications received before the deadline. The TIGER review and selection process consists of three phases: Technical Review, Tier 2 Analysis consisting of project readiness and economic analysis, and Senior Review. A Control and Calibration Team ensures consistency across projects and appropriate documentation throughout the review and selection process. In the Technical Evaluation phase, teams comprising staff from the Office of the Secretary (OST) and modal administrations review all eligible applications and rate projects as Highly Recommended, Recommended, Acceptable, or Not Recommended based on how well the projects align with the selection criteria.
Tier 2 Analysis consists of (1) an Economic Analysis and (2) a Project Readiness Analysis. The Economic Analysis Team, comprising OST and modal administration economic staff, assess the potential benefits and costs of the proposed projects. The Project Readiness Team, comprising Office of the Secretary Office of Policy (OST-P) and modal administration staff, evaluates the proposed project's technical and financial feasibility, potential risks and mitigation strategies, and project schedule, including the status of environmental approvals and readiness to proceed.
In the third review phase, the Senior Review Team, which includes senior leadership from OST and the modal administrations, considers all projects that were rated Acceptable, Recommended, or Highly Recommended and determines which projects to advance to the Secretary as Highly Rated. The Secretary selects from the Highly Rated projects for final awards.
Prior to award, each selected applicant will be subject to a risk assessment required by 2 CFR 200.205. The Department must review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). An applicant may review information in FAPIIS and comment on any information about itself. The Department will consider comments by the applicant in addition to the other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants.
Following the evaluation outlined in Section E, the Secretary will announce awarded projects by posting a list of selected projects at
All awards will be administered pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards found in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted by DOT at 2 CFR part 1201. Additionally, applicable Federal laws, rules and regulations of the relevant modal administration administering the project will apply to the projects that receive TIGER Discretionary Grants awards, including planning requirements, Service Outcome Agreements, Stakeholder Agreements, Buy America compliance, and other requirements under DOT's other highway, transit, rail, and port grant programs.
For projects administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), applicable Federal laws, rules, and regulations set forth in Title 23 U.S.C. and Title 23 CFR apply. For an illustrative list of the applicable laws, rules, regulations, executive orders, polices, guidelines, and requirements as they relate to a TIGER project administered by the FHWA, please see
Federal wage rate requirements included in subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code, apply to all projects receiving funds under this program, and apply to all parts of the project, whether funded with TIGER Discretionary Grant funds, other Federal funds, or non-Federal funds.
Each applicant selected for TIGER Discretionary Grants funding must submit quarterly progress reports and Federal Financial Report (SF-425) on the financial condition of the project and the project's progress, as well as an Annual Budget Review and Program Plan to monitor the use of Federal funds and ensure accountability and financial transparency in the TIGER program.
Each applicant selected for TIGER Discretionary Grant funding must collect information and report on the project's observed performance with respect to the relevant long-term outcomes that are expected to be achieved through construction of the project. Performance indicators will not include formal goals or targets, but will include observed measures under baseline (pre-project) as well as post-implementation outcomes for an agreed-upon timeline, and will be used to evaluate and compare projects and monitor the results that grant funds achieve to the intended long-term outcomes of the TIGER Discretionary Grants program are achieved. To the extent possible, performance indicators used in the reporting should align with the measures included in the application and should relate to at least one of the primary selection criteria defined in Section E. Performance reporting continues for several years after project construction is completed, and DOT does not provide TIGER Discretionary Grant funding specifically for performance reporting.
If the total value of a selected applicant's currently active grants,
For further information concerning this notice please contact the TIGER Discretionary Grants program staff via email at
All information submitted as part of or in support of any application shall use publicly available data or data that can be made public and methodologies that are accepted by industry practice and standards, to the extent possible. If the application includes information the applicant considers to be a trade secret or confidential commercial or financial information, the applicant should do the following: (1) Note on the front cover that the submission “Contains Confidential Business Information (CBI)”; (2) mark each affected page “CBI”; and (3) highlight or otherwise denote the CBI portions. DOT protects such information from disclosure to the extent allowed under applicable law. In the event DOT receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, DOT will follow the procedures described in its FOIA regulations at 49 CFR 7.17. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under that procedure will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice with request for comments.
The Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of the Secretary (OST) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the
Comments must be submitted on or before March 28, 2016.
Direct comments to the Department of Transportation Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You may submit comments by the following methods:
•
•
You may obtain copies of the proposed information collection and supporting documents from US Department of Transportation, Office of Financial Management, B-30, Room W93-431, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-0448,
• Vendors will need to have electronic internet access to register in the Delphi eInvoicing system.
• Vendors will submit invoices electronically and DOT OAs must process invoices electronically.
• The identities of system users must be verified prior to receiving access to the Delphi eInvoicing system. Prospective Users must complete a user request form and provide the following information: Full name, work address, work phone number, work email address, home address and home phone number. Prospective users must present the completed form to a Notary Public for verification. Prospective users will then return the notarized form to DOT to receive their login credentials.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, as amended.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information entitled “Affordable Care Act—Summary of Benefits and Coverage Disclosures.”
Written comments should be received on or before March 28, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Carrie Holland, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Tuawana Pinkston at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before March 28, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimates, or any other aspect of the information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained by emailing
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before March 28, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimates, or any other aspect of the information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained by emailing
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 38 U.S.C. App. 2 that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans will be held April 6, 2016 through April 8, 2016. On April 6 and April 7, the Committee will meet at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 930, Washington, DC, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. On April 8, the Committee will meet at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 930, Washington, DC, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with an on-going assessment of the effectiveness of the policies, organizational structures, and services of VA in assisting homeless Veterans. The Committee shall assemble and review information related to the needs of homeless Veterans and provide advice on the most appropriate means of providing assistance to that subset of the Veteran population. The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities.
The agenda will include briefings from officials at VA and other agencies regarding services for homeless Veterans. The Committee will also receive a briefing on the annual report that was developed after the last meeting of the Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans and will then discuss topics for its upcoming annual report and recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. Interested parties should provide written comments on issues affecting homeless Veterans for review by the Committee to Ms. Lisa Pape, Designated Federal Officer, VHA Homeless Programs Office (10NC1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 90 K Street, Northeast, Washington, DC, or email to
Members of the public who wish to attend should contact both Charles Selby and Timothy Underwood of the VHA Homeless Program Office by March 18, 2016, at
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The FDIC is seeking comment on a proposed rule that would facilitate prompt payment of FDIC-insured deposits when large insured depository institutions fail. The proposal would require insured depository institutions that have two million or more deposit accounts to maintain complete and accurate data on each depositor's ownership interest by right and capacity for all of the institution's deposit accounts, and to develop the capability to calculate the insured and uninsured amounts for each deposit owner by ownership right and capacity for all deposit accounts, which would be used by the FDIC to make deposit insurance determinations in the event of the insured depository institution's failure.
Comments must be received by May 26, 2016.
You may submit comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Marc Steckel, Deputy Director, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, 571-858-8224; Teresa J. Franks, Associate Director, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, 571-858-8226; Shane Kiernan, Counsel, Legal Division, 703-562-2632; Karen L. Main, Counsel, Legal Division, 703-562-2079.
The FDIC is proposing new requirements for certain large and complex insured depository institutions (“IDIs”), as measured by number of deposit accounts, to ensure that depositors have prompt access to insured funds in the event of a failure. When a bank fails, the FDIC must provide depositors insured funds “as soon as possible” after failure while also resolving the failed bank in the least costly manner.
The FDIC makes deposit insurance determinations after calculating the net amount due to depositors of a failed institution based upon the laws and regulations governing deposit insurance. While the general coverage limit of $250,000 is widely understood and may appear to be easily applied, the laws and regulations governing deposit insurance limits are more detailed, which necessitates more complex processing. The process begins by aggregating the amounts of all deposits in the failed institution by depositor according to the rights and capacities associated with each account type. This process becomes more complicated, for example, when there are a large number of deposit accounts, when the failed institution has multiple deposit systems, when identifying information for the same depositor in separate accounts is incorrect or inconsistent, when beneficial owners of pass-through accounts have not been identified, or when beneficiaries of trust accounts and their relative interests have not been identified.
The proposed rule would reduce the difficulties the FDIC faces when making prompt deposit insurance determinations at the largest IDIs. It would require IDIs with two million or more deposit accounts to maintain complete and accurate depositor information and to develop the capability to calculate deposit insurance coverage for all deposit accounts using their own information technology system (“IT system”). The proposed rule would ensure that customers of both large and small failed banks receive the same prompt access to their funds, reducing disparities that might undermine market discipline or create unintended competitive advantages in the market for large deposits.
The size and complexity of the IDIs affected by this rule justify imposing more specific data requirements on those IDIs than on smaller IDIs to ensure that the FDIC can make prompt deposit insurance determinations. Institutions covered by the proposed rule often use multiple deposit systems, which may complicate the FDIC's deposit insurance determination as described in
Ensuring the swift availability of funds for millions of depositors at a large IDI would contribute to financial stability. Confidence that the FDIC can promptly determine insured amounts will reinforce the understanding that any size bank can fail without systemic disruptions. That understanding would, in turn, reduce the moral hazard that might otherwise induce the largest banks to take excessive risks.
The FDIC is authorized to prescribe rules and regulations as it may deem necessary to carry out the provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDI Act”).
Although the statutory requirement that the FDIC pay insurance “as soon as possible” does not require the FDIC to pay insurance within a specific time period, the FDIC strives to pay insurance promptly. Indeed, the FDIC strives to make most insured deposits available to depositors by the next business day after a bank fails. The FDIC believes that prompt payment of deposit insurance is essential for several reasons. First, prompt payment of deposit insurance maintains public confidence in the deposit insurance system as well as in the banking system. Second, depositors must have prompt access to their insured funds in order to meet their financial needs and obligations. Third, a delay in the payment of deposit insurance—especially in the case of the failure of one of the largest insured depository institutions—could have systemic consequences. Fourth, a delay could reduce the franchise value of the failed bank and thus increase the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund. Fifth, prompt payment would reduce the likelihood that disruptions in the check clearing cycle or to direct debit arrangements would occur during the resolution process.
The FDIC took an initial step toward ensuring that prompt deposit insurance determinations could be made at large insured depository institutions through the issuance in July 2008 of § 360.9 of the FDIC's regulations.
While the FDIC is authorized to rely upon the account records of a failed IDI to identify owners and ownership rights and capacities, in the FDIC's experience it is not unusual for a failed bank's records to be ambiguous or incomplete. For example, the FDIC might discover multiple accounts under one name but at different addresses or under different names but at the same address. The problem of accurately identifying the owners of deposits is exacerbated when an account at a failed bank has been opened through a deposit broker or other agent or custodian and neither the name nor the address of the owner appears in the failed bank's records. Often in such cases, the only party identified in the records is the agent or custodian. (In the case of accounts held by agents or custodians, the FDIC provides “pass-through” insurance coverage, meaning that the coverage “passes through” the agent or custodian to each of the actual owners.
Under each of these circumstances, in order to ensure the accurate payment of deposit insurance, the FDIC may need to delay the payment of insured amounts to depositors while it manually reviews files and obtains additional information as to the actual owners or beneficiaries and their respective interests. Such delays in the insurance determination process could increase the likelihood of disruptions to an assuming institution's or an FDIC-managed bridge bank's back office functions, such as the check clearing cycle and direct debit arrangements.
While these challenges to accurately determining and promptly paying deposit insurance may be present at any size of failed institution, they become increasingly formidable as the size and complexity of the institution increases. Larger institutions are generally more complex, have more deposit accounts, greater geographic dispersion, multiple deposit systems, and more issues with data accuracy and completeness. These factors, which all contribute to the difficulty of making a prompt deposit insurance determination, have become more pronounced over time and can be attributed largely to consolidation in the banking industry. From 2004 to 2014, the largest number of deposit accounts held at a single IDI increased 119 percent, and the deposit accounts at the ten banks having the most deposit accounts increased 106 percent. As a result of this concentration, the largest banks have become even more complex than before, with greater potential for significant IT systems disparities, as well as data accuracy and completeness problems. The largest IDIs which grew through acquisition have inherited the legacy deposit account systems of the acquired banks. Those systems might have missing and inaccurate deposit account information; the acquired records might not be automated or compatible with the acquired institution's deposit systems—resulting in multiple deposit platforms.
Although the largest institutions are still able to conduct their banking operations without expending the resources necessary to integrate these inherited systems or update the acquired deposit account files, the state of their deposit systems would complicate and prolong the deposit insurance determination process in the event of failure. Because delays in deposit insurance determinations could lead to bank runs or other systemic problems, the FDIC believes that
The FDIC's experience in the financial crisis, which peaked in the months following the promulgation of § 360.9, indicated that failures can often happen with very little notice and time for the FDIC to prepare. Since 2009, the FDIC was called upon to resolve 47 institutions within 30 days from the commencement of the resolution process to the ultimate closing of the bank. In addition to these rapid failures, the financial condition of two banks with a large number of deposit accounts—Washington Mutual Bank and Wachovia
The FDIC has worked with institutions covered by § 360.9 for several years to confirm their ability to comply with the rule's requirements. This implementation process has led the FDIC to conclude that the standard data sets and other requirements of § 360.9 are not sufficient to mitigate the complexities of the largest institution failures. Based on its experience reviewing the covered institutions' deposit data (and often finding inaccurate or incomplete data), deposit recordkeeping systems, and capabilities for imposing provisional holds, the FDIC believes that § 360.9 has not been as effective as had been hoped in enhancing the capacity of the FDIC to make prompt deposit insurance determinations. Specifically, the continued growth following the promulgation of § 360.9 in the number of deposit accounts at larger IDIs and the number and complexity of deposit systems or platforms in many of these institutions would exacerbate the difficulty of making prompt deposit insurance determinations. A failed IDI that has multiple deposit systems would further complicate the aggregation of deposits owned by a particular depositor in a particular right and capacity, causing additional delay.
Using the FDIC's IT system to make deposit insurance determinations at a failed institution with a large number of deposit accounts would require the transmission of massive amounts of deposit data from the IDI's IT system to the FDIC's IT system. The time required for transmitting and processing such a large amount of data would present a significant impediment to making an insurance determination in the timely manner that the public has come to expect. The 36 institutions projected to be covered by the proposed rule each hold between 2 million and 85 million deposit accounts. Requiring the covered institutions to enhance their deposit account data and upgrade their IT systems so that the FDIC can perform the deposit insurance determination on all of their deposit accounts without a data transfer would address many of these issues.
On April 28, 2015, the FDIC published in the
The FDIC has carefully considered all of the comments. The commenters generally acknowledged the FDIC's objectives regarding the need for the covered institutions to maintain more complete and accurate depositor information and to develop the capability to calculate the deposit insurance coverage for all deposit accounts using their IT systems. The commenters recognized the FDIC's obligation to fulfill its statutory mandates. One commenter that would not be covered expressed its full support for the proposals set forth in the ANPR. This commenter agreed that because delays in the FDIC's determination of deposit insurance coverage could lead to bank runs or other systemic problems, more needs to be done to ensure that the FDIC can continue to make prompt deposit insurance determinations for accounts at even the largest and most complex insured depository institutions, specifically those with a large number of deposit accounts. In addition, another commenter noted a number of possible benefits to the implementation of these proposals by the covered institutions; this commenter believed that the greatest benefit would be the preservation of the public's confidence in the FDIC and in the banking industry in general. Other benefits identified included: Greater efficiencies in the wind-down process, less time and human capital spent in the wind-down process, and better compliance with anti-money laundering and Bank Secrecy Act requirements because of the necessity to identify the underlying beneficial owners of various types of accounts.
Nevertheless, a number of commenters expressed concerns with various aspects of the proposals as set forth in the ANPR. The following discussion organizes their comments to present the most common positions discussed in their letters and communications which, inter alia, include: The FDIC would be transferring its statutory responsibility to make the deposit insurance determinations to the covered institutions; community banks should not be covered by the proposals; and the implementation of enhanced deposit account recordkeeping and IT system capabilities by covered institutions would be a multi-year effort involving significant bank resources.
Several commenters voiced the opinion that the proposal to require certain large IDIs to develop the capability to perform the deposit insurance calculation on all or a significant subset of their deposit accounts effectively would be transferring the FDIC's statutory responsibility to make deposit insurance determinations to the covered institutions. This is not the case. The FDIC recognizes the importance of distinguishing between the covered institutions' responsibility to maintain complete and accurate records and to enhance their IT systems from the FDIC's responsibility to make deposit
In order to pay insured deposits to the failed bank's depositors as soon as possible, as directed in section 11(f)(1) of the FDI Act,
In order to fulfill its statutory responsibilities with respect to the depositors of the largest and most complex IDIs, the FDIC must be able to rely on the covered institutions having the requisite deposit account information readily available and having an IT system capable of performing the deposit insurance calculations at the FDIC's direction. Therefore, the proposed rule would require the covered institutions to improve their deposit account recordkeeping and the capability of their IT systems so that in the event of failure, deposit records would be immediately available to the FDIC for the purpose of quickly and accurately determining the appropriate deposit insurance coverage for each deposit account. Upon a covered institution's failure, the FDIC would employ the covered institution's IT system to make the deposit insurance determination. Requiring the covered institutions to develop these capabilities would enable the FDIC to satisfy its statutory mandate to pay insured deposits as soon as possible. The FDIC would use these capabilities to make deposit insurance determinations only after the failure of a covered institution. Consequently, it would not be delegating its statutory responsibility to the covered institution.
The FDIC sought comment regarding two options proposed to address the issue of determining the deposit insurance coverage for pass-through deposit accounts promptly. The first option would require the FDIC to identify the covered institutions' pass-through accounts (upon failure) and place temporary holds on the entire balance in each account. Current FDIC regulation allows the information which would identify the beneficial owners of the pass-through deposit accounts to be maintained off-site in the deposit broker's or other agent's records. Therefore, the financial intermediaries (banks, brokers, agents, and custodians) would submit the required depositor information to the FDIC in a standard format within a certain time frame. The FDIC's claims agents would then review the depositor information provided by the agents and make a deposit insurance determination. This process is labor-intensive and generally requires depositors' access to these funds to be temporarily restricted.
Two commenters focused their discussion on deposit products and accounts provided by brokers to their customers and the preferred procedure for providing the depositors' information to the FDIC at bank failure. Both commenters supported the continued use of the procedures described in Option 1 which would, in effect, maintain the status quo.
As discussed more fully in
In order to address the increased volume of pass-through accounts at covered institutions, as well as the need of the beneficial owners to have immediate access to the funds in their transactional accounts on the next business day, the FDIC presented a second option to require the covered institutions to maintain up-to-date information on the principal or underlying depositor at the covered institutions. This proposed change in deposit account recordkeeping would allow the FDIC to make immediate or prompt deposit insurance determinations either for all pass-through deposit accounts or at least those accounts where depositors would expect and require immediate access to their funds on the next business day.
Both of the commenters who discussed pass-through deposit account issues voiced opposition to the FDIC's pass-through proposal for a number of reasons. One commenter challenged the FDIC's statutory authority to require the covered banks to maintain depositor information on the beneficial owners of brokered deposits in the covered institutions' own records. This commenter correctly noted that the concept of pass-through deposit insurance coverage is grounded in the FDIC's enabling statute, the FDI Act. Section 11(a)(1)(C) states that “[f]or the purpose of determining the net amount due to any depositor . . . the [FDIC] shall aggregate the amounts of all deposits in the insured depository institution which are maintained by a depositor in the same capacity and the same right for the benefit of the depositor either in the name of the depositor or in the name of any other person.” The FDIC is not attempting to alter the statutory basis for pass-through insurance coverage, however.
Section 12(c) of the FDI Act provides the FDIC with the legal basis for determining deposit insurance coverage. The FDIC is not required to recognize and pay deposit insurance to any person whose “name or interest as such owner is not disclosed on the records” of the failed financial institution “if such recognition would increase the aggregate amount of the insured deposits” in such failed IDI. The only exception to this standard is the proviso: “Except as otherwise prescribed by the Board of Directors.” In 1990 and again in 1998, the FDIC adopted amendments to the deposit insurance regulations which involved recordkeeping requirements for fiduciary relationships (which include deposit brokers and their beneficial owners). For example, the multi-tiered fiduciary relationship provisions permit deposit insurance coverage for the principal or underlying depositor if the
This commenter stated that the FDIC's amendments to its recordkeeping requirements for fiduciary or pass-through accounts “provide[d] the FDIC with greater flexibility in granting pass-through coverage when the existence of an agency or other relationship necessary for pass-through insurance is not clear from the bank's records.” If the commenter has interpreted the flexibility afforded to the banks regarding the fiduciary relationship recordkeeping requirements as creating additional FDIC pass-through deposit insurance coverage for deposits placed by multi-tiered fiduciaries or deposit brokers, then that interpretation would be inconsistent with the position the FDIC is taking in the proposed rule. Allowing the covered institutions to rely on the deposit brokers or other agents to maintain the necessary documentation represents a liberalization of the recordkeeping requirement set forth in section 12(c) of the FDI Act. As such, the FDIC's deposit insurance regulations allow the FDIC to recognize the pass-through nature of certain deposit accounts and pay deposit insurance to the underlying deposit owners even when the records are not maintained at the failed bank. The FDIC does not view the relaxing of the statutory recordkeeping requirement as “granting” pass-through insurance coverage, but rather merely facilitating recordkeeping arrangements between the covered institutions and their deposit brokers and other agents. Conversely, requiring the covered institutions to maintain beneficial ownership information on-site would not adversely impact the availability of pass-through insurance coverage provided that the necessary documentation is present in the covered institution's records.
In summary, the FDI Act provides for pass-through deposit insurance for the principal depositor or the beneficial owner of a deposit placed by an agent on its behalf. The FDIC recognizes these depositors and pays deposit insurance when their ownership is appropriately documented. In that regard, the FDIC must also adhere to the legal standard set forth in section 12(c) of the FDI Act to identify deposit owners and pay insured deposits. The FDIC has the authority pursuant to section 12(c) of the FDI Act to require the covered institutions to maintain the necessary records on-site. If the FDIC determines that the current recordkeeping flexibility is no longer appropriate or feasible for the covered institutions, then the FDIC Board is within its statutory authority to adopt different recordkeeping requirements through the issuance of a new regulation. To deny the FDIC's authority to require the covered institutions to maintain the necessary information on the beneficial owners of the brokered deposits in their own records in order to make accurate and timely deposit insurance determinations would, in effect, ignore section 12(c) of the FDI Act.
The other commenter presented four arguments to demonstrate why Option 2 would not be an acceptable alternative to the status quo. First, the ANPR did not demonstrate the existence of a problem with pass-through accounts that would justify the imposition of a new regulatory burden as described in the FDIC's pass-through proposal. Second, requiring covered institutions also to maintain beneficial ownership information that presently resides with financial intermediaries such as deposit brokers would needlessly increase the exposure of depositor information to cyber-attack and identity theft. Third, community banks would be forced to provide information on their best customers to large banks, potentially giving the covered institutions an unfair competitive advantage. Finally, the application of different depositor recordkeeping rules to different banks could create depositor confusion and reduce public confidence in the FDIC.
In response to the first argument, the FDIC briefly addressed in the ANPR the problems of pass-through accounts in making a deposit insurance determination.
The proposed rule would not create different deposit insurance coverage for the covered institutions' depositors. The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to modify the deposit account
While it is true that the FDIC is not required to pay deposit insurance to any depositor “whose name or other interest as such owner is not disclosed on the record” of the failed bank, this is not the FDIC's intention in the current rulemaking process. The pass-through proposal, as described in the ANPR, does not attempt to restrict or limit pass-through deposit insurance coverage. Covered institutions would have heightened recordkeeping and IT system capability requirements to enable the FDIC to fulfill its statutory responsibility to pay insured deposits as soon as possible regardless of the size of the IDI. These proposed requirements would not, however, change the deposit insurance coverage standards for any covered institution's depositors.
The FDIC also recognizes that requiring the covered institutions to obtain and maintain information on the beneficiaries of certain types of trust accounts at the covered institutions is a new approach. The FDIC's intent, however, is not to create different insurance coverage rules for accounts at different banks as characterized by one commenter. The FDIC does not view this enhanced recordkeeping requirement for the largest and most complex institutions as effectively bifurcating the deposit insurance coverage rules. Rather, the FDIC is proposing to impose a higher recordkeeping standard on the covered institutions so that the depositors at those institutions can be confident that the FDIC will pay their insured deposits within the same time frame that currently applies to the FDIC's resolution of smaller insured depository institutions. Even though the deposit account recordkeeping requirements for the covered institutions would be increased, the underlying deposit insurance coverage for the covered institutions' depositors would remain unchanged.
This proposed approach stands in contrast, however, to the procedure adopted by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation (“CDIC”) in the context of deposits held in trust at its member institutions. The CDIC requires its member institutions
Many commenters advanced the argument that obtaining and maintaining the information on the beneficial owners of many types of pass-through deposit accounts would not be possible. The commenters offered a number of reasons, among them: Ownership of certificates of deposit can change on a nightly basis, the volume of underlying beneficial owners is too large, the costs involved to develop the IT system to store such information would be prohibitively expensive, and concerns regarding maintenance of confidentiality. The FDIC is aware of these factors and recognizes that situations will exist which would prevent a covered institution from being able to comply with the general requirements of the proposed rule. As more fully discussed in
One commenter did seek confirmation that the FDIC would continue a practice discussed in connection with the implementation of § 360.9, which allows a financial intermediary acting as a fiduciary to make withdrawals from MMDAs transferred to a bridge bank or an assuming institution to satisfy the withdrawal requests of its customers. Nevertheless, as the FDIC stated in the preamble to the § 360.9 final rule, “Responsibility for [any] shortfall will rest with the broker or agent in whose name the account is titled, and not the FDIC as insurer.”
Three commenters raised a different issue regarding “qualifying joint accounts” as defined in the FDIC's regulations at 12 CFR 330.9(c). They expressed their concern specifically with the signature card requirement included as one factor (of three) in establishing a qualifying joint account. These commenters offered reasons why it is difficult for covered institutions to ensure that the joint account holders' signature card complies with the FDIC's regulation. Another commenter noted that the framework for certain types of deposit accounts, such as joint accounts and payable-on-death (“POD”) accounts, is found in state law. Therefore, covered institutions which have a multi-state presence must structure those account categories to satisfy different states' laws. Some of these commenters suggested possible solutions to the perceived problem of maintaining signed and accurate signature cards for joint accounts: First, the regulatory requirement could be deleted in the context of a bank failure or second, the regulation could be amended so that all banks would be allowed to conclusively presume that a joint account is a “qualifying joint account” based solely on the titling of the account on their systems.
For several reasons, the FDIC has decided not to use the proposed rule as a vehicle for eliminating the signature card requirement for joint accounts. First, the FDIC believes that its signature card requirement simply reflects what an insured depository institution should be doing as a matter of safe and sound banking practice regardless of the FDIC's deposit insurance coverage requirements. The signature card represents the contractual relationship between the depositor (or depositors) and the covered institution, and signature cards are a reliable indicator of deposit ownership. Second, the purpose of the proposed rule is simply to ensure that the FDIC's deposit insurance rules at 12 CFR part 330 can be applied in a timely manner in the event of failure of a covered institution. Finally, elimination of the signature card requirement for joint accounts might enable some depositors to disguise single accounts (owned entirely by one person) as joint accounts (opened in the names of two persons). Simplification of the rules or requirements prescribed by Part 330 could produce unintended consequences. In short, the FDIC is not proposing to amend the insurance coverage rules in 12 CFR part 330. Assuming that the FDIC does decide to amend part 330, it would do so through a separate rulemaking so that all consequences of doing so could be thoughtfully considered.
Two commenters voiced strong opposition to the possibility that the proposals described in the ANPR might be applied to community banks. One expressed concern that, in the future, the FDIC might extend the proposal's requirements to the covered institutions currently subject to § 360.9. Another stated that the proposal could force community banks to disclose the identity of their best customers (and information about the deposit relationship) if the proposal would require large banks receiving brokered deposits to obtain and maintain information about beneficial owners. This could give the large banks an unfair competitive advantage.
Currently, 12 CFR 360.9 applies to approximately 150 insured depository institutions. As the ANPR explained, the most recent financial crisis has resulted in continued consolidation of the banking industry and even greater complexity of banks' deposit systems. The FDIC's concerns are focused on the very largest and most complex institutions and not on insured depository institutions that would be identified as community banks. The proposals set forth in this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPR”) would apply to only a subset of the covered institutions under § 360.9;
Commenters who addressed the scope of closing night deposits generally agreed that individual, joint, and business accounts should be designated as closing night deposits. Some commenters asserted that these three categories represent a substantial subset of deposit accounts. One commented that it should also include retirement accounts. Another suggested that closing night deposits be limited to transaction, savings, and money market accounts where clients are accustomed to immediate liquidity. This commenter would also include brokered MMDAs, prepaid cards such as payroll cards and General Purpose Reloadable (“GPR”) cards, and POD accounts. Still another commenter advocated for coverage of transactional and MMDA accounts at a minimum to meet depositors' immediate liquidity needs, as well as savings accounts and, on a voluntary basis, certificates of deposit.
Several commenters asserted that the covered institutions have significantly varying projections of the percentages of their deposit balances for which they anticipate their IT systems having the capability to make insurance determinations because the data and systems capabilities vary among covered institutions and the definition of “closing night deposits” is not yet known. Another commenter estimated that its suggested definition would represent approximately 90-92 percent of its deposits. It noted, however, that the other 8-10 percent of its deposit base would be very difficult to treat as closing night deposits. And another commenter estimated that its definition would represent 70 percent of its accounts and 55 percent of balances from its core deposit systems. One
The FDIC recognizes that the concept of “closing night deposits” served as a proxy for those deposit accounts and deposit insurance rights and capacities for which depositors would expect immediate access to their funds on the next business day. Therefore, the deposit insurance determination would have to be performed by the FDIC on “closing night” to ensure next business day availability. It is apparent to the FDIC from the comments that, for most covered institutions, the deposit accounts or deposit insurance rights and capacities that the commenters would prefer be identified as closing night deposits were those for which the requisite deposit ownership information was readily available.
However, as noted by the commenters, there is currently no uniformity or consistency among institutions regarding which deposit insurance categories could be handled as closing night deposits. At the moment, certain institutions would be able to include more types and a greater volume of deposit accounts for immediate insurance determination processing than other covered institutions. The FDIC does not intend to restrict the covered institutions to a pre-determined set of deposit insurance categories. Consequently, the FDIC has adjusted its approach for identifying the deposit accounts for which a covered institution should have complete and accurate ownership information that would be needed by the FDIC to make deposit insurance determinations at the time of the covered institution's failure. The ultimate goal would be for a covered institution's IT system to be able to calculate deposit insurance on all deposit accounts promptly upon the covered institution's failure. Rather than rely on the notion of “closing night deposits,” the proposed rule generally requires covered institutions to obtain and maintain the deposit account information for
Nevertheless, the FDIC recognizes that it may prove difficult, and in some cases, impossible, for covered institutions to obtain the requisite depositor information for certain deposit insurance categories and/or types of deposit accounts. To address that possibility, the proposed rule provides a procedure for a covered institution to request an extension to comply with the proposed rule's requirements, an exception from compliance with respect to certain deposit accounts which meet certain criteria, and in one specific situation, an exemption from compliance with the regulation as ultimately adopted. The accounts that would not fit within the scope of closing night deposits are those for which the covered institutions would be unable to obtain the necessary deposit ownership information and are, therefore, the type which would be eligible for exception. The FDIC would consider the particular facts and circumstances presented in a covered institution's application when determining whether to grant an exception for certain types of accounts or deposit insurance categories.
The majority of the commenters expressed the opinion that certain types of accounts, such as formal trust accounts, brokered deposits, time deposits, foreign deposits, prepaid cards and other omnibus accounts entitled to pass-through deposit insurance coverage should not be closing night deposits. (Omnibus accounts are described by one commenter as business accounts or operating cash accounts in which cash is temporarily deposited while awaiting investment or distribution.) According to the commenters, acquiring complete records of beneficial owners of pass-through accounts presents significant challenges. Moreover, the commenters maintained that these accountholders do not need immediate or near-immediate access to funds after failure. Such accounts should therefore be post-closing deposits. A number of commenters stated that the FDIC already has established procedures for determining deposit insurance for brokered deposits placed at a failed institution. Furthermore, these commenters recommended that there be no material change in the FDIC's procedures in this regard, and therefore, brokered deposits should continue to be handled as post-closing deposits.
Several commenters also stated that covered institutions should not be required to maintain information on beneficiaries of trust deposit accounts, beneficial owners of pass-through accounts, or other parties for whom covered institutions do not currently collect such information. Their comment letter set forth four legal or practical barriers to a covered institution's ability and/or authority to obtain depositor information on various types of trust accounts. First, a trustee has a fiduciary duty to keep the affairs of the trust confidential. Second, the Uniform Trust Code and certain state statutes provide that a trustee may use a Certification of Trust to protect the privacy of a trust instrument by discouraging requests for complete copies of the instrument. Third, banks serving as trustees pursuant to a bond indenture, for example, do not know who the beneficiaries are. Fourth, the status of various beneficiaries (
Additionally, several commenters requested that foreign deposits be excluded entirely from the scope of any proposed or final rule. These commenters reasoned that these types of deposits are not eligible for deposit insurance, and therefore, should not be evaluated for insurance coverage at the depositor level.
As discussed above, the FDIC is not utilizing the concepts of closing night deposits and post-closing deposits in the proposed rule to differentiate between the types of deposit accounts for which deposit insurance should be calculated immediately upon a covered institution's failure. As several commenters noted, determining which depositors should have immediate access to their funds following a bank failure is a public policy issue that should be determined by Congress and the FDIC. The FDIC believes that it is not realistic or accurate to assume that all transaction accounts will be found in the individual, joint, and business account categories. In fact, several of the commenters recognized that, with technological advances and the evolution of financial products, many other types of accounts can be structured as transactional accounts. For example, one commenter recognized that its clients would likely need immediate or near-immediate access to brokered MMDA funds after failure. Another commenter believed that transaction accounts, MMDA, and savings accounts would include the funds that may be most needed by consumers. Moreover, this same commenter suggested that access to CDs is not critical and therefore should be included only on a voluntary basis. Still
There appears to be no consensus within the banking industry regarding which categories or types of deposit accounts must be made immediately available to the depositors of a failed bank. The FDIC believes, however, that only providing immediate access to the deposit accounts associated with the individual, joint and business categories may no longer be adequate because consumers now have access to many additional types of deposit accounts and financial products outside of these categories which effectively serve as transactional accounts. Therefore, the FDIC has developed the proposed rule to require covered institutions to obtain and maintain the necessary information regarding all deposit accounts so that the FDIC can make deposit insurance determinations and pay insured deposits as soon as possible after a covered institution's failure as required by section 11(f)(1) of the FDI Act.
With respect to foreign deposits, the FDIC believes that covered institutions should maintain the relevant depositor information concerning foreign deposits in their deposit account systems. While it is true, as several commenters pointed out, that the FDIC does not need the information about foreign deposits to complete its initial deposit insurance determinations on a failed bank, the FDIC will need such information post-closing to determine whether certain depositors who hold dually payable accounts in foreign branches of domestic covered institutions should receive advance dividends on their foreign deposits. In October 2013, the FDIC amended its deposit insurance regulations to clarify that deposits placed in a foreign branch of a domestic bank that are dually payable would be recognized as “uninsured deposits” rather than as a general unsecured claim against the failed bank's receivership estate.
Four commenters shared their views regarding the applicable treatment of prepaid cards as “closing night” versus “post-closing night” deposits as described in the ANPR. Several commenters relied on the guidance and practices adopted in the implementation of § 360.9 to conclude that deposits represented by prepaid cards would still have to be handled as post-closing night deposits. These commenters stated that the FDIC, in working with the covered institutions to implement § 360.9, “identified classes of deposits for which full depositor identification could not reasonably or practically be obtained and the data download requirements would not apply;” they cited to the FDIC's Web site and the guidance that was originally posted on March 18, 2009.
One commenter took the position that prepaid card accounts should be divided into two categories;
One commenter highlighted several issues that it believed would impair the FDIC's ability to make prompt deposit insurance determinations at the largest institutions,
The FDIC recognizes two major types of prepaid cards: “closed-loop cards” and “open-loop cards.” Generally, in the case of a “closed-loop” card, the card is sold to a member of the public in the same manner that a gift certificate might be sold to a member of the public. The card enables the cardholder to obtain goods or services from a specific merchant or group of merchants. Examples of “closed-loop” merchant cards include prepaid telephone cards and gift cards sold by bookstores, coffee shops and other retailers. The funds paid to a merchant in exchange for a merchant card are not insured on a pass-through basis by the FDIC because the funds are not placed into a custodial deposit account at an insured depository institution. Indeed, the funds might not be placed into any type of deposit account at an insured depository institution. Rather, the funds might be used by the merchant in the operation of its business. For purposes of the proposed rule, the FDIC is concerned with “open-loop” cards and similar products that provide access to stored funds placed on deposit (by the cardholder or another party) at an insured depository institution. Examples of such cards include GPR cards, payroll cards and government benefits cards. In some cases, the access mechanism is not a plastic card but some other device such as a code used through a computer or mobile telephone. In any event, after the placement of the funds into an account at an insured depository institution, the funds are transferred or withdrawn by the holders of the access mechanisms.
In many cases, the prepaid card or other mechanism is “reloadable,” meaning that additional funds may be placed at the insured depository institution for the cardholder's use. The card could be reloaded in many ways, including direct deposit, transfer of funds from another bank account, placement of funds at the insured depository institution through an ATM, or delivery of funds to a clerk at a retail store for subsequent transfer of the funds to the insured depository institution. Moreover, some types of prepaid cards are subject to certain federal consumer protection laws. Specifically, Regulation E, Electronic Funds Transfers, 12 CFR part 1005, applies to payroll cards, which are established directly or indirectly through an employer, and government benefit cards, which are issued by government agencies.
Working from the premise that, with respect to prepaid cards, the FDIC's focus is with making prompt deposit insurance determinations on “open-loop” prepaid cards, the FDIC recognizes the concerns voiced by the commenters who addressed this issue. For example, it may be much easier to track the balances on certain types of prepaid cards than it would be to identify the actual owners/depositors of those cards. As noted by several commenters, ownership information for some types of prepaid cards might be unavailable or could not feasibly be collected. Nevertheless, the FDIC believes that the financial and technological landscape which existed when it issued its guidance in connection with § 360.9 over six years ago has changed. Therefore, covered institutions should consider their current capabilities before asserting that ownership information for certain types of prepaid cards is not available or could not reasonably be collected. Advances in information technology should keep pace with the development of financial products offered to the public. The same innovation which is responsible for creating the myriad of payment/debit cards should be applied to develop the covered institutions' capability to identify and track the ownership and balances on open-loop cards issued and/or sponsored by these institutions.
Ultimately, the FDIC would consider a hybrid approach as suggested by two of the commenters. A prepaid card is a type of pass-through deposit account which, in many cases, the customer uses
Several commenters predicted the deposit insurance calculation would take at least 24 hours following bank failure provided that it is limited to single, joint and business accounts. First, daily closing balances would be established by the FDIC after the failed covered institutions normal daily processing runs to completion, usually not before the early morning hours of the following day. Then, the augmented system developed pursuant to the proposed rule would calculate deposit insurance coverage, taking at least 12 hours based on the time required for normal daily processing. After that, insured balances would be posted to the deposit accounts for which a determination has been made by the FDIC, which could take at least another 12 hours. A commenter predicted that, under the same assumptions for closing night deposits, the deposit insurance determination process could be completed by the FDIC “by noon the calendar day following bank failure.” This commenter explained that this “timeline is predicated on the nightly batch cycle and posting, which would need to complete before data could be gathered to begin the insurance determination process.” Another commenter indicated that if a covered institution failed on a Friday, for example, there would usually be no batch processing to the applications until the following Monday. Moreover, a bank deposit servicer would normally require 24 hours' notice to run batch processing.
The FDIC has considered these comments and recognizes that various institutions' systems require different amounts of time to compute their end-of-day ledger balances. Nevertheless, the FDIC believes that, given the overriding concerns for financial system stability in a time of crisis, it should establish a uniform time frame within which the FDIC can employ the covered institution's IT system to facilitate the deposit insurance determination process measured from the time of the covered institution's failure and the FDIC's appointment and take-over of the failed institution. The FDIC proposes, therefore, that all covered institutions would develop their IT systems to ensure that the FDIC could complete the deposit insurance determination process within 24 hours after appointment as the receiver. This 24 hour standard would ensure uniformity and consistency across all covered institutions and would allow the FDIC to guarantee prompt payment of insured deposits regardless of the particular failed institution and its deposit systems.
Several commenters are opposed to requiring the covered institutions to disclose to their depositors the insured and uninsured amounts of their deposits. They provided several arguments in favor of their position. Providing up-to-date information regarding the deposit insurance status of depositors' accounts would not be feasible because by the time the covered institutions run their daily processes (and then calculate the insured balances), additional transactions would have taken place which would render the information out-of-date. The stale information combined with the complexity of the deposit insurance rules could lead to unnecessary customer concern and inquiry. Moreover, although the ANPR raised the question of requiring covered institutions to be able to calculate deposit insurance coverage at the close of any business day, the commenters noted that there is no requirement that covered institutions actually perform this operation on a daily basis. The complexity involved to run this operation and present the information in a customer friendly format would far exceed even the complexity of a system to support the FDIC's deposit insurance determination at an IDI's failure. The commenters opined that the costs of this requirement would far outweigh any questionable benefit.
One commenter recommended that the FDIC's Electronic Deposit Insurance Estimator continue to serve as “the appropriate communication tool for depositors inquiring on insurance coverage.” This commenter also stated that, if only the covered institutions are required to provide this information to their depositors, then this disparity in the treatment of depositors at community banks could be viewed as a competitive disadvantage to the smaller banks.
Another commenter stated that “developing the system functionality to calculate the deposit insurance for each account and customer by closing night (or any given night) could be particularly onerous, especially if there are various deposit systems to consider.” This commenter opined that it would most likely not be worth the cost of development and implementation. The commenter suggested that a covered institution could provide such information, if requested by a depositor, but it should not be required to do so proactively. The FDIC has considered the commenters' views regarding this matter and is not pursuing this initiative as part of this rulemaking process.
Two commenters mentioned the issue of the FDIC's need to conduct testing to ensure the covered institutions' compliance with the requirements presented in the ANPR. The commenters recommended that the FDIC be flexible in its approach. These commenters expressed the need for the FDIC to provide clear direction on the timing, requirements, parameters, and expectations of testing and reporting as detailed standards would help covered institutions prepare to meet FDIC expectations. They specifically requested that the testing protocols be developed through the public rulemaking process. “The frequency of testing is a major concern that escalates with the complexity of tests and location (on-site vs. remote).” These commenters supported their assertion regarding testing by noting that “even basic testing would take a minimum of 12 hours and many staff to run the system before any follow-up trials or reporting” could begin. Consequently, they recommended off-site testing and reporting with attestation of results; on-site examinations, if required, should be scheduled well in advance to allow the covered institutions to plan workflows. A commenter recognized the importance of compliance testing to the FDIC and acknowledged that testing would be an important component of this proposed process from its perspective as well. This commenter emphasized that it would be looking to the FDIC for additional guidance regarding the FDIC's testing expectations in order to better organize its efforts and allocate its resources
The FDIC recognizes that imposing testing requirements on the covered institutions would create additional demands on their human resources and IT systems as well as impose certain additional financial costs. The FDIC has endeavored to develop a testing protocol that would minimize burden on a covered institution but still provide the FDIC with the information necessary to confirm that each covered institution's IT system would be capable of calculating deposit insurance coverage within the prescribed time frame. In many respects, the proposed testing procedures would be similar to those which currently apply to the institutions covered by § 360.9. The FDIC would expect to conduct one initial on-site testing visit. Once the initial test is completed successfully, the FDIC would schedule additional on-site testing visits to occur no more frequently than annually. More frequent testing might be necessary for covered institutions that make major acquisitions, experience financial distress (even if the distress would be unlikely to result in failure), or undertake major IT system conversions. To reduce the frequency of on-site testing by the FDIC and to ensure on-going compliance, the FDIC would require the covered institutions to conduct their own in-house tests on an annual basis (as is currently required under § 360.9). The covered institutions would be required to provide the FDIC with verification that the test was conducted, a summary of the test results, and its certification that the functionality could be successfully implemented. The FDIC is proposing that no testing would be conducted during the proposed two-year implementation period.
According to some commenters, the covered institutions have advised that “they would need at least four years with potential extensions for implementation after any final rule is issued.” These commenters noted that the covered institutions are currently in the process of incorporating systems enhancements to comply with a number of other regulatory requirements. They urged the FDIC to recognize that any requirements imposed by the ANPR proposals would have to be queued with these other regulatory requirements. Finally, these commenters requested the FDIC to provide “means to alleviate the burden of individual, customized programming” of the covered institutions' systems and that the FDIC be prepared to work closely with the individual covered institutions to address the systems development which would “necessarily involve details that are unique to each covered bank.”
One commenter discussed implementation time frames in three different contexts in its comment letter. First, the commenter predicted that based upon its definition of closing night deposits, which would include transaction, savings and MMDAs for individual, joint and business account categories, “it would take a minimum of 18 months to implement the enhancements for this portion of the bank's deposit base.” Second, with respect to deposit accounts that this commenter characterized as post-closing deposits (which include trust accounts, retirement accounts, etc.), the commenter estimated that it would take a “minimum of two years to implement enhancements to the deposit system for this portion of its deposit base.” Finally, the commenter suggested that any final rule should include a phased-in approach to implementation.
Another commenter recommended a two-year phase-in period for these covered banks to modify their software systems and implement the new regulatory requirements. On the other hand, another commenter stated that the software systems it offers have the requisite capabilities to capture the necessary data already; however, identifying beneficiaries on many trust accounts could be quite labor intensive and would require a significant amount of customer interaction. This commenter also found regulatory efficiency in the sense that the system enhancements would support FinCEN's goals with forthcoming anti-money laundering regulations.
One commenter argued that there is no need for the FDIC to rush to impose new deposit account recordkeeping requirements on financial institutions. This commenter believed that § 360.9 has not been in effect long enough to determine its effectiveness and, moreover, that the IDIs that would be subject to the proposal are not in danger of failing.
The commenters' predictions regarding the appropriate time frame(s) to implement the proposals described in the ANPR ranged from 18 months to four or more years. The FDIC recognizes that many factors must be considered, and numerous variations in the covered institutions' IT systems will cause significant differences in the speed with which the covered institutions would be able to collect the required depositor information and adapt or develop the necessary IT capabilities to comply with the proposed rule's requirements. The FDIC believes that, for purposes of this proposed rule, two years is a reasonable time frame within which a covered institution should collect information from depositors and develop the IT system capability to calculate deposit insurance coverage. To the extent that two years is insufficient for a specific covered institution, the proposed rule would allow the covered institution to apply either for an extension of time to achieve compliance or for an exception from the requirements of certain provisions of the rule as currently proposed. These applications for extensions or exceptions should be submitted to the FDIC during the first two years after the effective date of a final rule.
The FDIC has several observations in response to commenters' assertions that there is no need for the FDIC to hasten new recordkeeping requirements on covered institutions or that § 360.9 has not been in effect for a sufficiently long period of time to determine its effectiveness. As more fully discussed in the ANPR, the process of developing § 360.9 began more than 10 years ago.
Finally, two commenters maintained that none of the covered institutions are in danger of failing, and therefore, no additional rulemaking is necessary at this time. During the course of the § 360.9 rulemaking process, the FDIC received many comments reflecting that same sentiment. In fact, the preamble to the § 360.9 final rule states that several commenters noted that, “the expected benefits to the FDIC are not likely to outweigh the costs, especially given the perceived
Several commenters stated that “[c]overed banks advise that it will not be possible for them to estimate costs until key issues are resolved, including the scope of deposits to be included in `closing night deposits.' ” Moreover, these commenters requested that the FDIC provide a clear statement of the deposit accounts/systems to be covered, the business rule that the covered institutions would need to follow in order to design their systems in a manner in which they can be employed by the FDIC to determine deposit insurance and adjust account balances accordingly, as well as guidance regarding systems expectations.
A commenter made several observations regarding the perceived costs versus benefits of adopting the ANPR proposals. First, while this commenter acknowledged that the FDIC may need this information to fulfill its statutory duties, it did not consider any of the required recordkeeping enhancements or the capability to calculate deposit insurance coverage as providing any intrinsic benefits to a covered institution itself. Moreover, it asserted that most of the covered institutions “are operating as going-concerns without financial difficulty.” It also made the point that the implementation of the ANPR's proposals would require an unsuitable use of resources to make substantial changes to existing legacy platforms. Another commenter pointed out that the burden is based more on the need for manual information collection than it is on increasing IT system capabilities.
Regarding cost/benefit, two commenters argued that the costly operational and information technology-related requirements would not generally enhance current processes or ongoing operations. Further, one of those commenters maintained that institutions are consolidating to cope with compliance costs and the additional costs imposed by the proposed rule would be passed through to consumers in the form of higher costs for banking services and products. Two commenters acknowledged that the benefit would be worth the cost, however. One reasoned that because delays in insurance determinations could undermine public confidence, more needs to be done to ensure prompt deposit insurance determinations when IDIs with a large number of deposit accounts fail. Another found benefits in improved consumer confidence in the FDIC and the banking system and greater efficiencies in the wind-down process which would translate to less time and human capital spent and thus less cost associated with the process.
The FDIC recognizes that the ANPR presented various options and general concepts regarding how a covered institution might develop its IT system and improve its depositor information collection and recordkeeping capabilities to comply with the FDIC's proposals. The ANPR represented the FDIC's effort to solicit the opinions and recommendations of the financial services industry as well as other interested parties at a very early stage in the development of its proposal. For this reason, no specific regulatory text was offered for consideration.
The FDIC's proposed rule provides specific requirements that the FDIC believes would be necessary to achieve its objectives as well as the details that the commenters are seeking,
The proposed rule would apply to all insured depository institutions that have two million or more deposit accounts, defined as “covered institutions.” Each covered institution would be required to (i) collect the information needed to allow the FDIC to determine promptly the deposit insurance coverage for each owner of funds on deposit at the covered institution, and (ii) ensure that its IT system is capable of calculating the deposit insurance available to each owner of funds on deposit in accordance with the FDIC's deposit insurance rules set forth in 12 CFR part 330. Moreover, the covered institutions' IT systems would need to facilitate the FDIC's deposit insurance determination by calculating deposit insurance coverage for each deposit account and adjusting account balances within 24 hours after the appointment of the FDIC as receiver should the covered institution fail. Developing these capabilities would improve the FDIC's deposit insurance determination and payment process by avoiding the need to transfer increasingly large amounts of data from a covered institution's IT system to the FDIC's IT system (including the need to rectify that data) in the event of a covered institution's failure. A covered institution could apply for: An extension of the implementation deadlines; an exception from the information collection requirements for certain deposit accounts under specified circumstances; an exemption from the proposed rule's requirements if all the deposits it takes are fully insured; or a release from all
The FDIC has identified two million accounts as the threshold for coverage under this proposed rule. This encompasses one half of one percent of all FDIC insured institutions, but includes the institutions where a prompt deposit insurance determination poses the greatest challenges. The proposed threshold of two million accounts is based on the FDIC's recent experience resolving failed institutions and preparing for the resolution of near-failures. We conclude that, although the total number of deposit accounts is only one dimension of the problem in making timely deposit insurance determinations, it is the most readily measured dimension of this problem. Moreover, the number of deposit accounts is highly correlated with the other attributes, such as the complexity of account relationships and multiple deposit systems that also contribute to this problem. The choice of two million deposit accounts as a threshold for coverage follows directly from the notion that the largest institutions pose a much greater challenge in terms of making a deposit insurance determination, and will also incur a lower cost of implementation per deposit account. That is, it is much more likely that the public benefits of meeting these requirements will exceed implementation costs at these very large institutions. To preclude the possibility that these requirements will be needlessly imposed on institutions that do not hold uninsured deposits, the proposal allows those institutions to apply for an exemption.
The FDIC's experience shows that making a deposit insurance determination can still pose operational challenges even at institutions with less than two million deposit accounts, particularly where there are serious inadequacies in the data and complex deposit account relationships. The FDIC is improving its existing systems and processes to address the challenges presented by banks below the two million account threshold. However, the volume of accounts and complexity of deposit recordkeeping systems at institutions with two million or more deposit accounts require that those institutions organize and correct deposit records in advance of failure. This approach would balance the costs of regulation with the benefits of making timely and accurate deposit insurance payments for U.S. financial stability and public confidence in the banking industry.
Most comments submitted in response to the ANPR did not explicitly address the proposed threshold for coverage. Two commenters, however, suggested that the proposed rule should not apply to community banks, but they did not identify a threshold number of accounts for coverage. One commenter shared its view that IDIs with $10 billion in assets and 100,000 accounts should be required to comply with the requirements described in the ANPR. The FDIC continues to seek comment regarding the appropriate scope of coverage for the proposed rule.
An insured depository institution would be a “covered institution” if, as of the effective date of a final rule, it had two million or more deposit accounts for the two consecutive quarters immediately preceding the effective date, as determined by reference to Schedule RC-O, “Other Data for Deposit Insurance and FICO Assessments,” in its Report of Condition and Income. An IDI that is not a covered institution as of the effective date of a final rule would become a covered institution when it has two million or more deposit accounts for any two consecutive quarters following the effective date. If the total number of deposit accounts at a covered institution were to fall below two million for three consecutive quarters after becoming a covered institution, then it could apply to the FDIC for release from the requirements set forth in the proposed rule.
The proposed rule incorporates by reference several of the concepts used for determining deposit insurance coverage. The term “deposit” is as defined in section 3(
The FDIC is proposing to use the term “unique identifier” to mean a number associated with an individual or entity that can be used by a covered institution to monitor its deposit relationship with only that individual or entity. The FDIC anticipates that the social security number, taxpayer identification number, or other government-issued identification number of an individual or entity (such as a passport number, or a visa number assigned to a foreign individual) could be used so long as a covered institution consistently and continuously uses only that number as the unique identifier for each individual or entity involved in the deposit relationship.
The requirements of the proposed rule are set forth in § 370.3. In order for the FDIC to accurately and completely determine the deposit insurance coverage associated with each account for each owner of deposits as soon as possible after a covered institution's failure, certain information must be readily available. The proposed rule's general mandate is that each covered institution must obtain from each of its account holders the information needed to calculate the amount of deposit insurance available for each owner of deposits.
To determine the amount of deposit insurance coverage, the FDIC must presume that deposits are actually owned in the manner indicated on the deposit account records of an IDI.
A covered institution would need to designate a point of contact for communication with the FDIC regarding implementation of the proposed rule's requirements. It would need to notify the FDIC of the designation within ten business days after the effective date of a final rule, or within ten business days after becoming a covered institution if it was not a covered institution on the effective date. The FDIC's staff would provide guidance and feedback to a covered institution through the designated point of contact in order to facilitate the covered institution's efforts to comply with the proposed new requirements. The FDIC believes that the ten business day time frame for designating a point of contact is appropriate because the FDIC intends to begin outreach efforts immediately after a final rule is adopted. Moreover, the three business day time frame for designating a point of contact under 12 CFR part 371, the FDIC's regulation concerning recordkeeping requirements for qualified financial contracts, has not presented any challenge for insured depository institutions that are subject to that rule, so ten days for a similar action under the proposed rule should not be unduly burdensome.
In order to be able to calculate the deposit insurance available to a depositor for each of its accounts, a covered institution would need to be able to identify certain individuals and entities from which information is needed. Those individuals and entities, and the type of information needed from them, would vary depending on the right and capacity in which a deposit is owned. Under the proposed rule, these individuals and entities would need to be assigned a unique identifier in a covered institution's IT system so that the system can reference each as needed to calculate deposit insurance coverage in the correct amounts across the applicable ownership rights and capacities. A covered institution would be required to assign a unique identifier to: Each account holder; each owner of funds on deposit, if the owner is not the account holder; and, in connection with deposit funds that are held in trust, each beneficiary of the trust who could have an interest in the funds on deposit. Covered institutions already use unique identifiers associated with insured deposit accounts for tax reporting purposes so, to the extent the same unique identifiers are used for purposes of the proposed rule, the additional burden should be minimal. Assigning unique identifiers to beneficial owners of deposits held in the name of an agent and to trust account beneficiaries would be a new requirement, however. Unique identifiers would need to be assigned within two years after the effective date of a final rule, or within two years after becoming a covered institution. The FDIC believes that two years would be an appropriate time frame within which to meet this requirement based on the comments it received. The FDIC is seeking further comment regarding this two-year time frame and the challenges that could prevent a covered institution from meeting the requirements of the proposed rule within two years.
A covered institution's IT system would need to be capable of grouping accounts by the appropriate ownership right and capacity because deposit insurance is available up to the SMDIA per each ownership right and capacity in which deposits are held. The proposed rule would require a covered institution to assign an account ownership right and capacity code to each deposit account within two years after the effective date of a final rule, or within two years after becoming a covered institution if it was not a covered institution on the effective date. Appendix A to the proposed rule lists the account ownership right and capacity codes with a corresponding description of each. Based on discussions with industry representatives, the FDIC believes that a substantial number of deposit accounts held at a covered institution can readily be assigned an account ownership right and capacity code because the covered institution already has all of the information needed to make the designation. Nevertheless, the FDIC is proposing a two-year implementation time frame for this requirement because a covered institution might not, on the effective date of a final rule, have sufficient information to assign an account ownership right and capacity code to certain types of deposit accounts. In such cases, the covered institution would need to obtain the missing information and, if it cannot, apply to the FDIC for an extension or exception if permitted pursuant to section 370.4 of the proposed rule.
A covered institution would need to make its IT system capable of accurately calculating the deposit insurance coverage available for each deposit account. The IT system would need to be able to generate a record that reflects the calculation and would contain, at a minimum, the name and unique identifier of the owner of a deposit, the balance of each of an owner's deposit accounts within the applicable ownership right and capacity, the aggregated balance of the owner's deposits within each ownership right and capacity, the amount of the aggregated balance within each ownership right and capacity that is insured, and the amount of the aggregated balance within each ownership right and capacity that is uninsured. Appendix B to the proposed rule specifies the data format for the records that the covered institution's IT system would need to produce. The proposed rule would require that this expansion of a covered institution's IT system's capabilities would need to be completed within two years after the effective date of a final rule, or within two years after becoming a covered institution. The FDIC believes that two years would be an appropriate time frame within which to meet this requirement based on its experiences monitoring development and implementation of IT system changes by insured depository institutions. The FDIC welcomes comment regarding this two-year time frame and the challenges that could prevent a covered institution from meeting the requirements of the proposed rule within two years.
If a covered institution were to fail, its depositors' access to their funds would need to be restricted while the FDIC makes deposit insurance determinations in order to avoid overpayment. Under the proposed rule, a covered
A covered institution's IT system would need to be capable of adjusting the balance in each of an owner's accounts, if necessary, after the deposit insurance determination has been completed by the FDIC. Specifically, if any of an owner's deposits within a particular ownership right and capacity were not insured, the covered institution's IT system would need to debit the owner's deposit accounts for the uninsured amount associated with each account held in the relevant ownership right and capacity. Any uninsured amount would be payable to the depositor as a receivership claim against the failed covered institution. The FDIC's regulations and resources concerning deposit insurance that are available to the public on the FDIC's Web site are useful tools that covered institutions can use to develop the capabilities of their IT systems to meet the proposed rule's requirements.
A covered institution's IT system would need to be capable of calculating deposit insurance coverage and debiting uninsured amounts, if any, within 24 hours after the FDIC's appointment as receiver should the covered institution fail. As discussed above, the FDIC believes that a uniform time frame within which it should be able to complete the deposit insurance determination process using a covered institution's IT system should be measured from the time of the covered institution's failure and the FDIC's appointment. The ability to accomplish the deposit insurance determination within 24 hours after failure is essential to preserving continuity of operations for depositors. The inability to access deposits for day-to-day transactions could have an adverse impact on the financial stability of the banking system if enough depositors were to be denied access to their funds for more than a minimal period of time. Additionally, the FDIC's ability to determine deposit insurance coverage quickly should help preserve a failed covered institution's franchise value, which would lead to greater recovery for the Deposit Insurance Fund and, in turn, lessen the negative impact on industry deposit insurance assessments.
Covered institutions may face challenges in their efforts to obtain the information needed to meet the requirements of the proposed rule. Recognizing that these challenges may be difficult to overcome in some cases, the FDIC is proposing several bases for limitation of the proposed rule's requirements. A covered institution would need to apply to the FDIC for relief from certain of the proposed rule's requirements and, if the application is granted, the covered institution would need to take certain other actions.
The FDIC is proposing a narrow basis for exemption from the requirements set forth in the proposed rule. A covered institution could apply to be exempted from the proposed rule if it could demonstrate that it does not, and will not in the future, take deposits that would exceed a deposit owner's SMDIA regardless of ownership right and capacity. In other words, if each owner of deposits were to have an amount equal to or less than the SMDIA (currently $250,000) on deposit at a covered institution, then each owner would be fully insured. Additionally, there would be no need to analyze any other information, such as beneficiary identities and interests, to determine the extent of deposit insurance coverage because the aggregate amount that the owner has on deposit across all ownership rights and capacities would be equal to or below the SMDIA. The FDIC's deposit insurance determination would be simple for deposit accounts at covered institutions that meet this condition and, therefore, the FDIC does not believe that requiring such covered institutions to develop the capability to calculate deposit insurance coverage is necessary.
A covered institution would be able to apply for an extension of the deadlines set forth in § 370.3 of the proposed rule if it could not meet them based on a well-justified exigency. It could apply for an extension of the two-year deadlines for obtaining the information needed to determine deposit insurance coverage, assigning account ownership right and capacity codes, and developing IT system capabilities. The application would need to explain in detail why the deadline needs to be extended and would need to describe the type of accounts that would be affected, the number of accounts affected, and the total dollar amount on deposit in those accounts as of the date of the covered institution's application. Furthermore, the application would need to specify the amount of time the covered institution expects would be needed to meet the requirement for which it seeks an extension and provide any other information needed to substantiate the request.
The proposed rule would allow a covered institution to apply for an exception from the requirements set forth in § 370.3 of the proposed rule if it can satisfy one of the following three conditions. First, a covered institution would be able to apply for exception if it does not have the information needed to calculate deposit insurance coverage for an account or for all accounts of a specific type, that it has requested such information from the account holder, and the account holder has not been responsive to the covered institution's request. Second, a covered institution would be able to apply for exception if it can provide a reasoned legal opinion that the information needed from an account holder to calculate deposit insurance coverage is protected from disclosure by law. Third, a covered institution would be able to apply for exception if it can provide an explanation of how the information needed to calculate deposit insurance coverage changes so frequently that updating the information on a continual basis would be neither cost effective nor technologically practicable. The FDIC would consider the nature of the deposit relationship to determine how frequently the information would need to change in order for a covered institution to be granted an exception, but anticipates that the rate would need to be on a daily or near daily basis. A covered institution's application for
The FDIC anticipates that a covered institution would seek release from the proposed rule's requirements if the covered institution were to no longer meet the two million account threshold for coverage. Under the proposed rule, a covered institution could apply for release from the proposed rule's requirements when it has fewer than two million deposit accounts, as determined by reference to Schedule RC-O in its Report of Condition and Income, for three consecutive quarters. It would, like any other IDI, become a covered institution again if it were to have two million or more deposit accounts for two consecutive quarters.
The objectives of the proposed rule overlap to an extent with the objectives of § 360.9. The FDIC recognizes that a covered institution's compliance with the proposed rule's requirements may alleviate the need for the covered institution to continue to take certain of the actions prescribed by § 360.9. Therefore, the proposed rule would allow a covered institution to apply for a release from the provisional hold and standard data format requirements set forth in 12 CFR 360.9, if it could demonstrate to the FDIC's satisfaction that it would comply with the proposed rule's requirements.
The FDIC would review a covered institution's application for exemption, extension, exception, or release, and determine, in its sole discretion, whether to approve the application. The FDIC's approval could be conditional or time-limited, depending on the facts and circumstances set forth in the application. If a covered institution's application for an extension or exception were to be granted by the FDIC, then the covered institution would need to ensure that its IT system can, in the event of its failure, do three things. First, it would need to be capable of imposing a hold on access to all funds in every deposit account that the application concerns for so long as it cannot calculate the deposit insurance available to those accounts. Second, it would need to be capable of generating a record in the format specified in appendix B listing those accounts so that the FDIC could obtain the information needed from the account holder to determine the amount of deposit insurance coverage relevant to those accounts after the covered institution's failure. And third, it would need to be capable of accepting additional information post-failure and performing successive iterations of the deposit insurance coverage calculation process described in § 370.3 of the proposed rule until the amount of deposit insurance available on every account has been determined. In addition to these IT system capabilities, a covered institution would also need to disclose to each account holder for whom its IT system cannot be used by the FDIC to facilitate the FDIC's deposit insurance determination that, in the event that the covered institution were to fail, access to funds in one or more accounts might be delayed. The FDIC would be unable to pay deposit insurance on those deposit accounts until after it received the information needed to make a complete deposit insurance determination. The purpose of this disclosure would be to moderate any expectation by an account holder or deposit owner that insured deposits would be immediately accessible after a covered institution's failure and to put them on notice that draw requests might not be honored until the deposit insurance coverage determination has been completed by the FDIC.
The proposed rule provides for accelerated implementation of the rule's requirements, on a case-by-case basis and with notice from the FDIC to a covered institution, in three scenarios. The first would be when a covered institution has received a composite rating of 3, 4, or 5 under the Uniform Financial Institution's Rating System (CAMELS rating) in its most recently completed Report of Examination. The second scenario would be when a covered institution has become undercapitalized, as defined in the prompt corrective action provisions of 12 CFR part 325. The third would be when the appropriate federal banking agency or the FDIC, in consultation with the appropriate federal banking agency, has determined that a covered institution is experiencing a significant deterioration of capital or significant funding difficulties or liquidity stress, notwithstanding the composite rating of the covered institution by its appropriate federal banking agency in its most recent Report of Examination. The FDIC is sensitive to concerns about the imposition of an accelerated implementation time frame during episodes of severe economic distress. Understandably, a covered institution's attention would be devoted to solving other critical problems that threaten the covered institution's financial health. However, providing depositors with immediate access to funds and preserving systemic stability is equally critical, and the ability to do that must be balanced against any hardship an accelerated implementation time frame might impose on a covered institution. Before accelerating the implementation time frame, the FDIC would consult with the covered institution's appropriate federal banking agency. The FDIC would evaluate the complexity of the covered institution's deposit systems and operations, the extent of the covered institution's asset quality difficulties, the volatility of the covered institution's funding sources, the expected near-term changes in the covered institution's capital levels, and other relevant factors appropriate for the FDIC's consideration as deposit insurer.
The proposed rule sets forth a two-part approach for compliance testing. First, beginning two years after the effective date of a final rule, a covered institution would need to certify compliance with the rule on an annual basis by submitting an attestation letter signed by its board of directors along with a summary deposit insurance coverage report to the FDIC by the end of the first quarter of each calendar year. The attestation letter would confirm that the covered institution's IT system would be capable of calculating deposit insurance coverage and that the covered institution had successfully tested that capability. It would also describe the impact of the exceptions or extensions that the covered institution had been granted on the IT system's ability to calculate deposit insurance coverage available to depositors. The summary deposit insurance coverage report accompanying the attestation letter would list key metrics for deposit insurance risk to the FDIC and coverage available to a covered institution's depositors. Those metrics would be: The number of depositors, the number of deposit accounts, and the dollar amount of deposits by ownership right and capacity; the total number of fully-insured deposit accounts and the dollar amount of deposits in those accounts; the total number of deposit accounts with uninsured amounts and the total dollar amount of insured and uninsured amounts in those accounts; the total number of deposit accounts and the dollar amount of deposits in accounts subject to an approved or pending application for exception or extension; and a description of any substantive change to the covered institution's IT system or deposit taking operations since the prior annual certification.
Second, the FDIC would conduct an on-site inspection and test of a covered institution's IT system's capability to calculate deposit insurance coverage. The FDIC would provide data integrity and IT system testing instructions to covered institutions through the issuance of procedures or guidelines prior to initiating its compliance testing program, and would provide outreach to covered institutions to facilitate their implementation efforts. Testing by the FDIC would begin no earlier than two years after the effective date of a final rule in order to give covered institutions time to collect information from account holders and make changes to their IT systems by the deadlines prescribed in the proposed rule. On-site testing would be conducted by the FDIC no more frequently than annually, unless there is a material change to the covered institution's IT system, deposit-taking operations, or financial condition. A covered institution would be required to provide assistance to the FDIC to resolve any issues that arise upon the FDIC's on-site inspection and testing of the IT system's capabilities. The FDIC anticipates that after a covered institution's IT system accurately demonstrates the capability to calculate deposit insurance coverage for a substantial number of the covered institution's deposit accounts, on-site inspection and testing would be needed only infrequently or when there had been a material change to the covered institution's IT system or deposit-taking operations.
Under the proposed rule, a violation of the requirements set forth therein would be grounds for enforcement action pursuant to section 8 of the FDI Act.
A covered institution might not be able to comply with the proposed rule's requirements during the pendency of a covered institution's application for extension, exception, extension or release. It may not have information sufficient to calculate deposit insurance coverage for some or all of a certain type of account, or it may have difficulties implementing changes to its IT system. Given those contingencies, the FDIC is proposing a safe harbor from enforcement action for noncompliance while a covered institution's application is pending. Enforcement action against a covered institution for noncompliance during that time would not promote the covered institution's level of compliance or improve the FDIC's preparedness for the covered institution's failure.
The FDIC is optimistic that covered institutions will recognize the benefits to be provided by this proposed rule and acknowledge that these improvements to the FDIC's ability to quickly and accurately determine deposit insurance will minimize costs to the Deposit Insurance Fund and increase confidence among depositors that they will have immediate access to their deposits in the event of a covered institution's failure. Enhanced public confidence in the deposit insurance payment process will, in turn, strengthen the banking system. The FDIC anticipates regular and continuous involvement with covered institutions during the implementation period and does not anticipate that an enforcement action would be taken unless a covered institution were to demonstrate persistent disregard for the proposed rule's requirements.
The purpose of this proposed rule would be to strengthen the FDIC's ability to administer orderly and least-costly resolutions for the nation's largest and most complex financial institutions. As proposed, the rulemaking applies to 36 institutions, each with two million or more deposit accounts, which together comprise only one half of one percent of all FDIC insured institutions. In light of the large size of these institutions and the millions of account holders who would require immediate access to their funds in the event of failure, the estimated implementation costs are relatively modest. Prompt and efficient deposit insurance determination by the FDIC ensures the liquidity of deposit funds, enables the FDIC to more readily resolve a failed IDI, promotes stability in the banking system, reduces moral hazard, and preserves access to credit for the economy.
While the FDIC's analysis estimates the expected costs of the proposed rule to covered institutions, the benefits of financial regulation are primarily shared by the public as a whole. Because there is no market in which the value of these public benefits can be determined, it is not possible to monetize these benefits. Therefore, the FDIC presents an analytical framework that describes the qualitative effects of the proposed rule and the quantitative effects where possible.
The FDIC anticipates that the relatively few large institutions that are subject to this proposed rule will incur significant costs in upgrading their information systems and internal processes in order to comply with its provisions. However, these costs are small relative to covered institutions' size, other expenses, and earnings.
In order to estimate the expected costs of complying with this proposed rule, the FDIC engaged an independent consulting firm and provided that firm with information about 36 larger institutions that were likely to be subject to the proposed rule.
Based on this information and its own extensive experience with IT systems at financial institutions, the consultant developed cost estimates around the following activities:
Cost estimates for these activities were derived from estimates of the types of workers needed for each task, the labor hours devoted to each cost component, the industry average labor cost (including benefits) for each worker needed, and worker productivity. The analysis assumed that manual data clean-up would affect five percent of deposit accounts, resolve ten accounts per hour, and use internal labor for 60 percent of the clean-up. This analysis also attributed higher costs to individual institutions based on factors that make timely and accurate deposit insurance determinations more complex. These complexity factors include:
Based on this analysis, the total projected cost for needed improvements at these institutions under the proposed rule amounts to just under $328 million (see Illustration 1, below, for a graphic portrayal of the cost model).
More than half of this cost estimate is attributable solely to legacy data quality improvement. However, some of the putative covered institutions are already undertaking efforts to improve their data quality to address their own operational concerns or other regulatory compliance efforts (
This estimate of the projected cost, while thorough in its treatment, may not perfectly account for the individual cost structures of the covered institutions. Consequently, the total estimated costs could be somewhat higher or lower than $328 million. The FDIC invites interested parties to comment on all expected costs or benefits of the proposed rule.
At the same time, it is instructive to place this cost estimate in context with the size of these institutions and the annual income and expense amounts they regularly report. Table 1, below, compares the $328 million cost estimate to 2014 annual expense totals for these institutions.
As indicated in Table 1, if compliance costs for these institutions total $328 million, they would equal just over one tenth of one percent of the total noninterest expenses incurred by these institutions in 2014. Given that these same institutions earned total pre-tax net income of just under $150 billion for the year, estimated compliance costs would be 0.22 percent of that amount.
Expressed as an average cost per deposit account, the $328 million cost would be equal to 80 cents for each account managed by these banks. This low average compliance cost per
It is worth noting that even if actual compliance costs turned out to be $650 million, twice the amount estimated in the consulting firm's analysis, these costs would still be relatively small in the context of the size, annual income, and expenses of these institutions. If costs were to be as high as $650 million, they would be equal to 0.24 percent of 2014 noninterest expenses, 0.43 percent of pre-tax net income, or $1.60 per deposit account managed by these institutions.
Clearly, not every institution would incur the same compliance costs in dollar terms or in relation to their annual income or expenses. Banks with more serious deficiencies in their current systems or with greater complexity in their business lines, accounts, and operations would be expected to incur above-average compliance costs. For example, some institutions that grew through acquisition have retained the legacy IT systems of the acquired banks. Multiple deposit platforms, missing and inaccurate depositor information, and the incompatibility of the IT systems would all contribute to higher costs. Banks with simpler operations and better systems would incur lower costs.
Covered institutions could pass at least some of the costs of the proposed rule to their stakeholders (customers, creditors, shareholders). The proposed rule is crafted in a manner that affects only large banks, and the FDIC neither intends nor anticipates negative consequences for small banks.
The FDIC expects that the benefits of the proposed rule would accrue broadly to the public at large, to bank customers, to banks not covered by the rule, and to the covered banks themselves. The primary benefits of the proposed rule are to ensure the liquidity of deposit funds in the event of the failure of one or more large banks, and to facilitate their orderly resolution. This outcome in turn would promote stability in the banking system, trust and confidence in deposit insurance, and access to credit for the economy.
The recent financial crisis has demonstrated that large financial institutions can fail very rapidly, and that their failures can have outsized effects on the macroeconomy. In addition to the direct economic impact of a large institution's failure, such a failure can also have contagion effects on other financial institutions. Consequently, post-crisis reforms are aimed at preventing or mitigating such effects. This proposed rule bolsters the FDIC's ability to allow depositors timely access to their insured funds in the event of a covered institution's failure without the need for extraordinary government assistance.
The failure of a covered institution would necessarily involve millions of deposit insurance claims. The inability to promptly settle these claims could lead to financial disruptions that could have effects on the macroeconomy as a whole. One recent study reported that government support for the financial sector in the 2008 financial crisis totaled more than $12 trillion, and the resulting loss of domestic output is estimated at $6 trillion to $14 trillion.
The public at large will be the primary beneficiaries of the proposed rule. An effective failed bank resolution maintains liquidity by providing timely access to insured funds, promotes financial stability by ensuring an orderly, least costly resolution, and reduces moral hazard by recognizing deposit insurance limits. Broadly, it facilitates the use of resolution transaction structures that would otherwise be unavailable. Making accurate and fair deposit insurance determinations for all insured institutions is a key component in carrying out the FDIC's mission of ensuring confidence in the banking system.
Bank customers will also benefit from the proposed rule. Timely deposit insurance determinations supported by the proposed rule would delineate insured and uninsured amounts for bank customers, granting them access to insured amounts to meet their transaction needs and financial obligations. The proposed rule improves upon current resolution practices by providing a mechanism for timely access to funds for depositors at even the largest IDIs.
Banks not covered by the proposed rule will benefit because the prompt payment of deposit insurance at the largest IDIs should promote public confidence in the banking system as a whole.
The enhancements to data accuracy and completeness supported by the proposed rule should benefit covered institutions as well. Improvements to data on depositors and information systems as a result of adopting the proposed rule may lead to efficiencies in managing customer data. The processing of daily bank transactions may be less prone to data errors. Moreover, opportunities for cross-marketing of bank products may result from maintaining more accurate data on deposit account relationships.
A number of alternatives were considered in developing the proposed rule. The major alternatives include: (i) Thresholds above and below the proposed two million accounts; (ii) the FDIC's current approach to deposit insurance determinations (status quo); (iii) the FDIC's development of an internal IT system and transfer processes capable of subsuming the deposit system of any large covered IDI in order to perform deposit insurance determinations; and (iv) simplifying deposit insurance coverage rules. The proposed rule is considered by the FDIC to be the most effective approach relative to the alternative approaches in terms of cost to the industry, the speed and accuracy of deposit insurance determinations, access to funds, and reduction of systemic and information security risks. Development of the proposed rule was based on a careful evaluation of expected effects and expertise of staff on the challenges of resolving a large failed IDI.
In deciding which institutions would be subject to the proposed rule, the FDIC considered thresholds above and below two million deposit accounts. Raising the threshold would decrease the costs of the rule on the industry because fewer institutions would be covered, but would also increase the risk of the FDIC being unable to make timely and accurate deposit insurance determinations for very large institutions. As described in
Making a correct and timely deposit insurance determination always requires that the FDIC have access to accurate data on deposit account relationships. The FDIC has learned from prior experience that it is possible to rectify data quality problems at small institutions without delaying the deposit insurance determination. However, the ability of the FDIC to promptly remedy data quality problems at large institutions declines rapidly with the number and complexity of
As described above in
The alternative of maintaining the status quo is defined by the existing deposit insurance determination process for large banks established in § 360.9 of the FDIC regulations, which became effective in August 2008. Section 360.9 requires covered institutions to maintain processes that provide the FDIC with standard deposit account information promptly in the event of failure. In addition, § 360.9 requires covered institutions to maintain the technological capability to automatically place and release holds on deposit accounts. Section 360.9 applies to insured depository institutions with at least $2 billion in domestic deposits and either 250,000 or more deposit accounts or $20 billion in total assets.
Adoption of § 360.9 was an important step toward resolving a large depository institution in an efficient and orderly manner. However, that rule does not adequately address two important problems that arise in the resolution of the largest and most complex institutions. First, it does not currently require institutions to maintain deposit account data that are accurate and complete for deposit insurance purposes. Addressing these data quality problems at the time of failure can introduce significant delays in making accurate deposit insurance determinations. Second, deposit insurance determination under 360.9 necessitates a secure bulk download of depositor data that introduces additional delays in making that determination. The FDIC's experience in resolving large institutions shows that the amount of time for a data download can vary widely based on the file size, complexity of the data, and the number of deposit systems among other things. Given the limited time available to the FDIC to make determinations these delays pose the risk of creating hardships on depositors and disruptions to financial markets.
Another alternative considered was establishing a system to rapidly transfer all deposit data from the failed IDI's IT system to the FDIC for processing in order to calculate and make deposit insurance determinations. Although this alternative could leverage efficiencies in computing power, the challenge of absorbing the deposit system or systems of a large, complex IDI in a time period short enough to produce prompt insurance determinations is practically infeasible. The process of moving the data in a quick and organized fashion would require a great deal of skilled labor and pose information security concerns. FDIC staff, working with staff from each large IDI, would have to develop individualized data transfer solutions for each institution tailored to their IT systems and third party applications. Extensive initial and ongoing testing would be required to establish the viability of the data transfer process and the validity of the data. Transferring large volumes of personal identifiable information would pose some information security risk to bank customers. Finally, any major changes in the large IDI's deposit system would necessitate further testing and validation. The large development, testing, and recertification costs borne by the FDIC under this alternative would likely be passed onto insured depository institutions as ongoing insurance assessments.
Simplifying the deposit insurance coverage rules was another alternative considered. Currently, deposit insurance can be obtained under different ownership rights and capacities, some of which have coverage levels that are set according to complex formulas. Reducing the number of rights and capacities or simplifying the coverage rules would reduce the costs associated with covered institutions' development of the capability to calculate deposit insurance coverage. However, most efforts to simplify the deposit insurance coverage rules would effectively reduce coverage to depositors at all FDIC insured institutions, an approach that would impose a cost on a wider range of institutions and bank customers. Further, these complex account types only present problems when the FDIC must analyze a significant number of those deposit accounts at the same time. The FDIC's established methods for dealing with these more complex accounts in smaller and mid-sized resolutions include manual processing, a process that could take too long in a larger resolution involving a significant number of these accounts. Consequently, the FDIC is not pursuing simplification of the deposit insurance coverage rules.
The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rule and requests feedback on the specific questions set out below.
The proposed rule, if adopted, would impose requirements on insured depository institutions that have two million or more deposit accounts. The FDIC has proposed this threshold based on its recent experience with actual failures and near-failures. This work indicates that the FDIC should first focus on improving its existing systems and processes to address the challenges presented by banks below the two million account threshold, and then pursue other approaches only if, and to the extent that, these efforts prove insufficient. The FDIC's experience indicates that a fundamentally different approach is needed to resolve large complex institutions. The volume of accounts held by such banks, coupled with the complexity typically found in these banks' deposit IT systems, necessitates that deposit records be organized in advance of failure in a way that facilitates rapid insurance determinations.
• Is the number of deposit accounts the appropriate metric for identifying insured depository institutions to be covered by the proposed rule's requirements? If not, what should the appropriate criteria be?
• Should the deposit account threshold be tiered based on the types of accounts offered by an insured depository institution?
• Should other factors or a combination of factors be used to determine which insured depository institutions would be subject to the requirements?
Covered institutions would be required to uniquely identify each account holder, each owner of funds on deposit if the accountholder is not the owner, and each beneficiary of a trust that has an interest in the deposits owned by the trust. The FDIC requests comments on all aspects of this proposed requirement. In particular:
• To what extent can covered institutions uniquely identify depositors using current systems, procedures, and identifying information (such as social
• What would be the best methods(s) to use for depositor identification? Should the FDIC specify the format to be used for depositor identification or should this be left to the covered institutions to determine?
• How expensive would it be for covered institutions to supply a unique identifier for each deposit owner? Is this something that covered institutions are considering for internal business purposes? If not, how do covered institutions determine common ownership for relationship management, cross-selling, risk management or other purposes? How long would it take to implement a unique depositor identification process? To what extent is the answer to the previous question a function of having to run deposit accounts on more than one platform?
• To what extent are covered institutions able to identify account owners (as opposed to trustees, managers, beneficiaries, etc.) from source files being supplied to the FDIC for insurance determination purposes? Does this differ by types of accounts; for example, checking accounts versus (brokered) CDs?
• Could covered institutions uniquely identify depositors within a single legacy data system? Is there an accompanying Customer Information File available for each legacy data system? Could the covered institutions provide instructions or rules to assist the FDIC to integrate depositor records across these legacy data sources?
Authorities in foreign jurisdictions have implemented similar initiatives since the financial crisis in 2008. Some covered institutions have branches in those countries.
• If covered institutions are already required to assign a unique identifier to each deposit owner in foreign jurisdictions, how would covered institutions integrate their efforts to meet those requirements with their efforts to meet the proposed rule's requirements?
• Could some of the systems development work, such as software programming, logic, data warehouse capabilities, be leveraged with the proposed U.S. implementation?
• Are there any best practices that should be considered in the U.S. proposal related to implementation, testing, or time frames?
Under the proposed rule, covered institutions would be required to identify and separate foreign deposits from domestic deposits. Foreign deposits are not insured, but the FDIC, as receiver, would need to determine claims of foreign depositors. The proposed rule would require foreign and dually-payable deposits to be identified separately from the rights and capacities set forth in Appendix A.
• How difficult would it be to do this?
• How many foreign deposit accounts do covered institutions have as compared to domestic accounts?
• What is the relative dollar amount of foreign deposits versus domestic deposits?
• How long would it take to identify and code foreign deposits that are dually payable?
• If a covered institution failed today, approximately how long would it take to identify the dually payable foreign deposits in the covered institutions' IT systems?
• How would the costs of developing an IT system for all deposits be significantly impacted by the inclusion of deposits held in branches outside of the United States?
• How would the inclusion of foreign deposits in the requirements of the proposed rule impact the covered institution's ability to provide timely information on the covered institution's insured deposits?
The FDIC recognizes that substantial time may be needed to implement the requirements described in this NPR and has proposed a two-year implementation timetable.
• Are there particular requirements that would take less time to implement?
• Are there particular requirements that would take more time to implement? If so, which requirements would pose these delays? Why?
• Is a two-year time frame reasonable for obtaining the information needed to calculate deposit insurance available on all accounts? Is a graduated approach, such as 90 percent of all accounts within two years, preferable?
• Would the proposed availability of extensions to accommodate aspects of compliance that are expected to take longer than two years provide sufficient implementation flexibility? If not, why?
The FDIC recognizes that covered institutions may need substantial guidance from the FDIC regarding deposit insurance coverage rules and application of those rules in various scenarios.
• The FDIC's regulations and resources concerning deposit insurance are available to the public on the FDIC's Web site. These are useful tools that covered institutions can use in their efforts to meet the proposed rule's requirements.
• Should the FDIC staff be available to assist with the initial implementation? If so, what would be the best approach?
• Should a one year check-in be mandatory or optional in order for covered institutions to obtain feedback before finalizing system enhancements?
• Are the standard FDIC deposit insurance coverage seminars and materials available at on the FDIC's Web site sufficient for covered institutions to accurately assign all of its deposit accounts with an account ownership right and capacity code? If not, how might the FDIC assist? Form letters? FDIC Declaration forms? Targeted outreach to certain constituencies?
The proposed rule provides an exception from the requirements for certain types of deposit accounts.
• What types of deposit accounts do not fit within the proposed rule's parameters for exception as presently described, but should? Why?
• To what extent do depositors rely for day-to-day funding on accounts for which a covered institution could be granted an exception from the proposed rule's requirements?
• Could an institution experience a significant cost savings if it were able to obtain an exception from the requirements of the proposed regulation on the basis that deposit insurance coverage would not be calculated for those accounts—such as CDs or IRAs—for several business days after the institution's failure?
In the case of accounts held by agents or custodians, the FDIC provides pass-through insurance coverage.
• In addition to brokered deposits that are reported on the Call Report, how many accounts with pass-through coverage do covered institutions have (number of accounts and aggregate dollar value)?
• What types of brokered, agent or custodial deposit accounts would deposit owners likely need immediate or near-immediate access to after failure?
• How difficult would it be for covered institutions to maintain current records on beneficial owners of pass-through deposit accounts? Are there certain types of pass-through deposit accounts where maintaining current records might be relatively easy or relatively difficult?
• How difficult would it be for banks to maintain current records on beneficial owners of pass-through accounts where the broker is an affiliate of the bank?
• What would the challenges and costs be for covered institutions to obtain information from agents and custodians regarding each principal's or beneficial owner's interest and to update that information whenever it changes?
• Could a covered institution or a broker enter into account agreements where the institution or broker would be able to assure payment on an account on the business day following the failure of the institution through the availability of overdraft protection or otherwise? If so, would this be a reasonable basis to provide an exception for such an account?
• The FDIC's rules for pass-through insurance coverage also apply to deposit accounts held by prepaid card companies or similar companies. Cardholders might use these cards (and the funds in the custodial account) as a substitute for a checking account. In the event of the failure of the insured depository institution, the cardholders will likely need immediate access to the funds in the custodial account to meet their basic financial needs and obligations. Under the proposed rule, covered institutions could apply for an exception from the obligation to collect the information needed to determine deposit insurance coverage for prepaid card accounts as described above. How difficult would it be for covered institutions to regularly collect current information from prepaid card issuers regarding each cardholder's ownership interest?
• Would it be feasible to obtain and maintain the necessary depositor information on a significant subset of prepaid card accounts such as payroll cards or accounts through which federal benefits are paid?
In the case of revocable and irrevocable trust accounts, the FDIC provides “per beneficiary” insurance coverage subject to certain conditions and limitations.
• How many trust accounts do covered institutions have (number and dollar amounts)?
• How many trust accounts are transaction accounts that depositors will likely need access on the next business day after failure? Is the proposed handling of this problem (through the exception request process) reasonable?
• If a covered institution is granted an exception from the proposed rule's requirements as to trust accounts, deposit insurance would not be paid until all necessary information has been provided to the FDIC. How disruptive would denying access to trust accounts after failure be?
• How difficult would it be for covered institutions to maintain current records on each beneficiary's ownership interest? How much information do banks already collect and retain on beneficiaries?
• How difficult would it be for trustees to supply the information to banks and keep it current?
• What legal authority do trustees have to withhold information from a covered institution about the number of beneficiaries and the respective interests of the beneficiaries?
• Are there other reasons trustees would not provide such information to a covered institution?
• Would covered institutions or account holders be receptive to using the FDIC Declarations for trust accounts?
Special statutory rules apply to the insurance coverage of certain types of accounts, including retirement accounts,
• Would any of these types of deposit accounts fit within the parameters for exception? How? Are there any that would not, but should?
• These accounts often have characteristics similar to accounts with pass-through coverage. The proposed rule would require covered institutions to identify deposit accounts by right and capacity. Can covered institutions reliably distinguish these special statutory accounts from accounts with pass-through insurance coverage that belong in other ownership rights and capacities?
• How difficult would it be for banks with a large number of deposit accounts to maintain full and up-to-date information on the owners of these accounts? How difficult would it be for depositors to supply the information and keep it current? For which types of accounts would it be relatively easy, or relatively difficult, to maintain current information for the purpose of determining deposit insurance coverage?
The proposed rule sets forth a framework for covered institutions to demonstrate compliance with the proposed rule's requirements.
• Do the agents have preferences for participating in the annual testing by the covered institutions or during the FDIC onsite compliance visit? Would masking the beneficiary information alleviate concerns about privacy or proprietary information? Could the agents estimate the time to submit the files?
• The FDIC staff would consider pulling a sample data set to check for completeness and accuracy against the covered institution's books and records during the onsite compliance review. Covered institutions would receive at least three months advance notice with detailed instructions. Would a minimum of three months be sufficient for preparation? However, some review could be conducted offsite.
The proposed rule would impose costs on covered institutions, but would also provide benefits to depositors, covered institutions and the banking system.
• To what extent would the proposed rule change insured depository institutions' deposit operations and IT systems?
• What would the costs associated with these changes be? Specifically, what would be the incremental cost of—
○ Obtaining and maintaining the information needed for the FDIC to make a deposit insurance determination that a covered institution does not already have?
○ Adapting its IT system to calculate the insured and uninsured amounts for all deposit accounts, other than accounts for which the covered institution would be granted an exception, within 24 hours after failure?
• In what ways could the implementation and maintenance costs be mitigated while still meeting the FDIC's objective of timely deposit insurance determinations?
• How could covered institutions' IT capabilities best be used to minimize the cost of the requirements?
• Banks have operational schedules for synchronizing systems for reporting at month-end, quarter-end and year-end. How disruptive or expensive would off-period reporting be? How long would it take to develop the ability for off-period reporting?
The FDIC has determined that this proposed rule involves a collection of information pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the “PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Estimated number of respondents: 36.
Estimated time per response: 10,300 to 747,700 hours per respondent.
Estimated total implementation burden: 3.2 million hours.
Estimated number of respondents: 36.
Estimated time per response: 1,300 to 1,700 hours per respondent.
Estimated total ongoing annual burden: 53,500 hours.
The proposed rule would require insured depository institutions that have two million or more deposit accounts (1) to maintain complete and accurate data on each depositor's ownership interest by right and capacity for all of the bank's deposit accounts, and (2) to develop and maintain the capability to calculate the insured and uninsured amounts for each deposit owner by owner right and capacity for all deposit accounts to be used by the FDIC to determine deposit insurance coverage in the event of failure. These requirements also must be supported by policies and procedures, as well as notification of individuals responsible for the systems. Further, the requirements will involve ongoing costs for testing and general maintenance and upkeep of the functionality. Estimates of both initial implementation and ongoing costs are provided.
Compliance with this proposed rule would involve certain reporting requirements.
• Not later than ten business days after the effective date of the final rule or after becoming a covered institution, a covered institution shall designate a point of contact responsible for implementing the requirements of this rulemaking.
• Covered institutions would be required to certify annually that their IT systems can calculate deposit insurance coverage accurately and completely within the time frame set forth in the proposed rule. This certification shall include all agent account files, but may be masked for testing purposes to maintain confidential or proprietary information. A covered institution shall provide the appropriate assistance to the FDIC when testing the IT system.
• Also on an annual basis, covered institutions shall complete a deposit insurance coverage summary report (as detailed in
• If a covered institution experiences a significant change in its deposit taking operations, it may be required to demonstrate that its IT system can calculate deposit insurance coverage accurately and completely more frequently than annually.
Comments on the ANPR provided little indication of implementation and ongoing costs for covered institutions. However, the FDIC conducted an analysis to estimate the various costs for covered institutions in the event that the requirements are adopted as proposed. The total projected cost of the proposed rule for covered institutions amounts to just under $328 million or approximately 3.2 million total labor hours over two years. The cost components of the estimate include: (1) Implementing the deposit insurance calculation; (2) legacy data cleanup; (3) data extraction; (4) data aggregation; (5) data standardization; (6) data quality control and compliance; (7) data reporting; and (8) ongoing operations. Estimates of total costs and labor hours for each component are calculated by assuming a standard mix of skilled labor tasks, industry standard hourly compensation estimates, and labor productivity. It is assumed that a combination of in-house and external services is used for legacy data clean up in proportions of 40 and 60 percent respectively. Finally, the estimated costs for each institution are adjusted according to the complexity of their operations and systems.
Implementation costs are expected to vary widely among the covered
The implementation costs for covered institutions are estimated to total just over $319 million and require approximately 3.1 million labor hours. The implementation costs cover: (1) Making the deposit insurance calculation; (2) legacy data cleanup; (3) data extraction; (4) data aggregation; (5) data standardization; and (6) data quality control and compliance. Costs for each covered institution are estimated to range from $1.5 million to $100 million and require 10,300 to 747,700 labor hours.
Ongoing costs for reporting, testing, maintenance and other periodic items are estimated to range between $213,000 and $270,000 annually for covered institutions. Approximately, 1,300 to 1,700 hours are estimated to be required for covered institutions to meet these requirements.
In addition to the questions raised elsewhere in this NPR, comment is solicited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the FDIC, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the FDIC's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act implications of this proposal. Such comments should refer to “Recordkeeping for Timely Deposit Insurance Determination, 3064—AE33.” Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
• A copy of the PRA-related 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, Room 3208, Washington, DC 20503.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 through 612, requires an agency to provide an initial regulatory flexibility analysis with a proposed rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 through 605. The FDIC hereby certifies that the Proposed Rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities, as that term applies to insured depository institutions.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Pub. L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 12338, 1471) requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The FDIC has sought to present the proposed rule in a simple and straightforward manner.
Bank deposit insurance, Banks, Banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings and Loan associations.
For the reasons stated above, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation proposes to add part 370 to title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1819 (Tenth), 1821(f)(1), 1822(c), 1823(c)(4).
This part requires the information technology system of a “covered institution” (defined in § 370.2(a)) to be capable of calculating the amount of deposit insurance coverage available for each deposit account in the event of the covered institution's failure. The purpose of this part is to improve the FDIC's ability to fulfill its legal mandates to pay deposit insurance as soon as possible after failure and to resolve a covered institution at the least cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund.
(a) A
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a) Notwithstanding 12 CFR 330.5(b)(2) and (3), a covered institution must obtain from each account holder and maintain in its records the information necessary to comply with this section unless otherwise permitted in accordance with § 370.4.
(b)
(c)
(1) Account holder;
(2) Owner, if the owner of the funds on deposit is not the accountholder; and
(3) Beneficiary, if the funds on deposit are held in trust.
(d)
(e)
(1) The account holder's name or, if the owner of the funds on deposit is not the accountholder, the owner's name;
(2) The account holder's unique identifier or, if the owner of the funds on deposit is not the account holder, the owner's unique identifier;
(3) The balance of each of the account holder's deposit accounts within the applicable ownership right and capacity or, if the owner of the funds on deposit is not the accountholder, the balance of the owner's share of deposit accounts within the applicable ownership right and capacity;
(4) The aggregated balance of the account holder's deposits within the applicable ownership right and capacity or, if the owner of the funds on deposit is not the accountholder, the aggregated balance of each owner's deposits within the applicable ownership right and capacity;
(5) The amount of the aggregated balance in paragraph (e)(4) of this section that is insured; and
(6) The amount of the aggregated balance in paragraph (e)(4) of this section that is uninsured.
(f)
(g)
(h)
A covered institution may apply for relief from the requirements of § 370.3(a) as described in this section. The FDIC will consider all applications on a case-by-case basis in light of the objectives of this part. Applications should be submitted in writing to: Office of the Director, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429-0002.
(a)
(b)
(i) Complete the development of additional capabilities in its information technology system to complete the requirements set forth in § 370.3; or
(ii) Obtain the information necessary to comply with § 370.3 from the account holder.
(2) The application shall provide a summarized description of the accounts affected including, at a minimum, the number of accounts affected, the amounts on deposit in affected accounts, the amount of additional time needed, and other information needed to justify the request.
(c)
(i) Does not maintain the information needed to complete the requirements set forth in § 370.3(a), has requested such information from the account holder and certifies that the account holder has refused to provide such information or has not responded to the covered institution's request for information;
(ii) Provides a reasoned legal opinion that the information needed to complete the requirements set forth in § 370.3(a) for accounts of a certain type is protected from disclosure by law; or
(iii) Provides an explanation of how the information needed to complete the requirements set forth in § 370.3(a) changes frequently and updating the information on a continual basis is neither cost effective nor technologically practicable.
(2) The covered institution's application shall provide a copy of the information request letter sent to the account holder(s) and a summarized description of the accounts affected that includes, at a minimum, the number of accounts affected, the amounts on deposit in affected accounts, and any
(d) The FDIC's grant of a covered institution's application may be conditional or time-limited.
(e) Notwithstanding § 370.7, a covered institution will not be in violation of this part during the pendency of an application for an extension, exception or exemption submitted pursuant to this section.
(f) If a covered institution's application for an exception or extension is granted by the FDIC, the covered institution shall:
(1) Ensure that its information technology system is, in the event of the covered institution's failure, capable of placing an effective restriction on access to all funds in deposit accounts identified in the request for exception or extension;
(2) Ensure that its information technology system is capable of creating files in the format and layout specified in Appendix B listing all accounts for which it is granted an exception or an extension under this section;
(3) Ensure that its information technology system is, in the event of the covered institution's failure, capable of receiving additional information collected by the FDIC after failure and repeatedly performing the requirements set forth in § 370.3; and
(4) In the case of an exception, disclose to the account holder reported with the application that in the event of the covered institution's failure, payment of deposit insurance may be delayed and items may be returned unpaid until all of the information required to make a deposit insurance determination has been provided to the FDIC.
(g)
(h)
(a) On a case-by-case basis, the FDIC may accelerate, upon notice, the implementation time frame for all or part of the requirements of this part for a covered institution that:
(1) Has a composite rating of 3, 4, or 5 under the Uniform Financial Institution's Rating System (
(2) Is undercapitalized, as defined under the prompt corrective action provisions of 12 CFR part 325; or
(3) Is determined by the appropriate federal banking agency or the FDIC in consultation with the appropriate federal banking agency to be experiencing a significant deterioration of capital or significant funding difficulties or liquidity stress, notwithstanding the composite rating of the covered institution by its appropriate federal banking agency in its most recent report of examination.
(b) In implementing this section, the FDIC must consult with the covered institution's appropriate federal banking agency and consider the: complexity of the covered institution's deposit system and operations, extent of the covered institution's asset quality difficulties, volatility of the institution's funding sources, expected near-term changes in the covered institution's capital levels, and other relevant factors appropriate for the FDIC to consider in its roles as insurer of the covered institution.
(a)
(2) The deposit insurance coverage summary report shall include:
(i) The number of depositors, number of deposit accounts and dollar amount of deposits by ownership right and capacity;
(ii) The total number of fully-insured deposit accounts and the dollar amount of deposits in those accounts;
(iii) The total number of deposit accounts containing uninsured amounts and the total dollar amount of insured and uninsured amounts in those accounts;
(iv) The total number of deposit accounts and the dollar amount of deposits in accounts subject to an approved or pending application for exception or extension under § 370.4; and
(v) A description of any substantive change to the covered institution's information technology system or deposit taking operations since the prior annual certification.
(3) If a covered institution experiences a significant change in its deposit taking operations, the FDIC may require it to demonstrate that its information technology system can determine deposit insurance coverage accurately and completely more frequently than annually.
(b)
(2) A covered institution shall provide the appropriate assistance to the FDIC as the FDIC tests the information technology system's capability to meet the requirements set forth in this part.
(3) The FDIC will provide system and data integrity testing instructions to covered institutions through the issuance of subsequent procedures or guidelines.
Violating the terms or requirements set forth in this part constitutes a violation of a regulation and subjects the covered institution to enforcement actions under section 8 of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1818).
A covered institution must use the codes defined below when assigning account ownership right and capacity codes.
The output files will include the data necessary for the FDIC to determine the deposit insurance coverage in a resolution. A covered institution must have the capability to prepare and maintain the files detailed below. These files must be prepared in successive iterations as the covered institution receives additional data from external sources necessary to complete any pending deposit insurance calculations. The unique identifier is required in all four files to link the depositor information. All files are pipe delimited. Do not pad leading and trailing spacing or zeros for the data fields.
The Customer file will be used by the FDIC to identify the depositor. One record represents one unique depositor. The data elements will include:
The Account file contains the deposit ownership right and capacity information including allocated balances, and insured and uninsured amounts. Each customer may have multiple records within each account ownership category (right and capacity) if the customer has multiple accounts in an insurance category. The balances are in U.S. dollars. The Account file is linked to the Customer file by the CS_Unique_ID. The data elements will include:
The Beneficiary file will be used by the FDIC to identify the beneficiaries for each account and account owner. One record represents one unique beneficiary. The Beneficiary file is linked to the Account file by CS_Unique_ID and DP_Acct_Identifier. The data elements will include:
The Pending file contains the information needed for the FDIC to contact the owner or agent requesting additional information to complete the deposit insurance calculation. Each record represents a deposit account.
By order of the Board of Directors.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments and information.
NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the training activities conducted in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Temporary Maritime Activities Area (TMAA) Study Area (hereafter referred to the Study Area) from May 2016 through May 2021. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue regulations and subsequent Letter of Authorization (LOA) to the Navy to incidentally harass marine mammals.
Comments and information must be received no later than March 28, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0008, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
John Fiorentino, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8477.
A copy of the Navy's LOA application, which contains a list of the references used in this proposed rule, may be obtained by visiting the internet at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (NDAA) (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated above and amended the definition of “harassment” as applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows (section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1362(18)(B)): “(i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild” [Level A Harassment]; or “(ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered” [Level B Harassment].
On July 28, 2014, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting a LOA for the take of 19 species of marine mammals incidental to Navy training activities to be conducted in the Study Area over 5 years. On October 14, 2014, the Navy submitted a revised LOA application to reflect minor changes in the number and types of training activities. To address minor inconsistencies with the DSEIS, the Navy submitted a final revision to the LOA application (hereafter referred to as the LOA application) on January 21, 2015.
The Navy is requesting a 5-year LOA for training activities to be conducted from 2016 through 2021. The Study Area is a polygon roughly the shape of a 300 nm by 150 nm rectangle oriented northwest to southeast in the long direction, located south of Prince William Sound and east of Kodiak Island, Alaska (see Figure 1-1 of the LOA application for a map of the Study Area). The activities conducted within the Study Area are classified as military readiness activities. The Navy states that these activities may expose some of the marine mammals present within the Study Area to sound from underwater
The LOA application and the GOA DSEIS/OEIS contain acoustic thresholds that, in some instances, represent changes from what NMFS has used to evaluate the Navy's activities for previous authorizations. The revised thresholds, which the Navy developed in coordination with NMFS, are based on the evaluation and inclusion of new information from recent scientific studies; a detailed explanation of how they were derived is provided in the GOA DSEIS/OEIS Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis Technical Report (available at
NOAA is currently in the process of developing Acoustic Guidance on thresholds for onset of auditory impacts from exposure to sound, which will be used to support assessments of the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammals. To develop this Guidance, NOAA is compiling, interpreting, and synthesizing the best information currently available on the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammals, and is committed to finalizing the Guidance through a systematic, transparent process that involves internal review, external peer review, and public comment.
In December 2013, NOAA released for public comment a “Draft Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammals: Acoustic Threshold Levels for Onset of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts” (78 FR 78822) (the term “threshold shift” refers to noise-induced hearing loss). The Draft Guidance was generally consistent with the Navy's Permanent Threshold Shifts/Temporary Threshold Shifts (PTS/TTS) criteria used in the GOA DSEIS/OEIS and detailed within Finneran and Jenkins (2012). Prior to the finalization of this guidance by NOAA, the Navy suggested revisions to the criteria (
Finneran (2015) proposed new weighting functions and thresholds for predicting PTS/TTS in marine mammals. The methodologies presented within this paper build upon the methodologies used to develop the criteria applied within the Navy's GOA DSEIS/OEIS (Finneran and Jenkins, 2012) and incorporate relevant auditory research made available since 2012. While Finneran and Jenkins (2012) presented a conservative approach to development of auditory weighting functions where data was limited, Finneran (2015) synthesizes a wide range of auditory data, including newly available studies, to predict refined auditory weighting functions and corresponding TTS thresholds across the complete hearing ranges of functional hearing groups.
During the development process of NOAA's Draft Guidance, NOAA incorporated Finneran (2015) into its Draft Guidance. As a result, the Navy's proposal (Finneran, 2015) was submitted for peer review by external subject matter experts, in accordance with the process previously conducted for NOAA's Draft Guidance. Peer review comments were received by NOAA in April 2015. NOAA subsequently developed a Peer Review Report, which was published on its Web site on July 31, 2015. The published report documents the Navy's proposal (Finneran, 2015) that underwent peer review, the peer-review comments, and NOAA's responses to those comments. NOAA then incorporated this information into revised Draft Guidance which was published in the
If the proposed criteria in Finneran (2015) were adopted by NOAA, incorporated into its Final Guidance, and applied to the Navy in the future, predicted numbers of PTS/TTS would change for most functional hearing groups. However, because Finneran (2015) relies on much of the same data as the auditory criteria presented in the Navy's GOA DSEIS/OEIS, these changes would not be substantial, and in most cases would result in a reduction in the predicted impacts. Predicted PTS/TTS would be reduced over much to all of their hearing range for low-frequency cetaceans and phocids. Predicted PTS/TTS for mid-frequency and high-frequency cetaceans would be reduced for sources with frequencies below about 3.5 kHz and remain relatively unchanged for sounds above this frequency. Predicted auditory effects on otariids would increase for frequencies between about 1 kHz and 20 kHz and decrease for frequencies above and below these points, although otariids remain the marine mammals with the least sensitivity to potential PTS/TTS. Overall, predicted auditory effects within this rulemaking would not change significantly.
In summary, NOAA's continuing evaluation of all available science for the Acoustic Guidance could result in changes to the acoustic criteria used to model the Navy's activities for this rulemaking, and, consequently, the enumerations of “take” estimates. However, at this time, the results of prior Navy modeling described in this notice represent the best available estimate of the number and type of take that may result from the Navy's use of acoustic sources in the GOA Study Area. Further, consideration of the revised Draft Guidance and information contained in Finneran (2015) does not alter our assessment of the likely responses of marine mammals to acoustic sources employed by Navy in the GOA Study Area, or the likely fitness consequences of those responses. Finally, while acoustic criteria may also inform mitigation and monitoring decisions, this rulemaking requires a robust adaptive management program that regularly addresses new information and allows for modification of mitigation and/or monitoring measures as appropriate.
The Navy's mission is to organize, train, equip, and maintain combat-ready naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression, and maintaining freedom of the seas. This mission is mandated by federal law (10 U.S.C. 5062), which ensures the readiness of
The Navy proposes to continue conducting training activities within the Study Area, which have been ongoing since the 1990s. The tempo and types of training activities have fluctuated because of the introduction of new technologies, the evolving nature of international events, advances in war fighting doctrine and procedures, and force structure (organization of ships, submarines, aircraft, weapons, and personnel) changes. Such developments influence the frequency, duration, intensity, and location of required training activities.
The Navy's LOA request covers training activities that would occur for a 5-year period following the expiration of the current MMPA authorization for the GOA TMAA, which expires in 2016.
The Navy is requesting authorization to take marine mammals incidental to conducting training activities. The Navy has determined that sonar use and underwater detonations are the stressors most likely to result in impacts on marine mammals that could rise to the level of harassment. Detailed descriptions of these activities are provided in the DSEIS/OEIS and in the LOA application (
The Navy routinely trains in the Study Area in preparation for national defense missions. Training activities and exercises covered in the Navy's LOA request are briefly described below, and in more detail within chapter 2 of the GOA DSEIS/OEIS. Each military training activity described meets a requirement that can be traced ultimately to requirements set forth by the National Command Authority.
The Navy categorizes training activities into eight functional warfare areas called primary mission areas: anti-air warfare; amphibious warfare; strike warfare; anti-surface warfare (ASUW); anti-submarine warfare (ASW); electronic warfare; mine warfare (MIW); and naval special warfare (NSW). Most training activities are categorized under one of these primary mission areas; those activities that do not fall within one of these areas are in a separate “other” category. Each warfare community (surface, subsurface, aviation, and special warfare) may train within some or all of these primary mission areas. However, not all primary mission areas are conducted within the Study Area.
The Navy described and analyzed the effects of its training activities within the GOA DSEIS/OEIS. In its assessment, the Navy concluded that of the activities conducted within the Study Area, sonar use and underwater detonations were the stressors resulting in impacts on marine mammals that could rise to the level of harassment as defined under the MMPA. Therefore, the LOA application provides the Navy's assessment of potential effects from these stressors. The specific acoustic sources used in the LOA application are contained in the GOA DSEIS/OEIS and are presented in the following sections based on the primary mission areas.
The mission of ASUW is to defend against enemy ships or boats. In the conduct of ASUW, aircraft use cannons, air-launched cruise missiles or other precision-guided munitions; ships employ torpedoes, naval guns, and surface-to-surface (S-S) missiles; and submarines attack surface ships using torpedoes or submarine-launched, anti-ship cruise missiles.
Anti-surface warfare training in the Study Area includes S-S gunnery and missile exercises (GUNEX and MISSILEX) and air-to-surface (A-S) bombing exercises (BOMBEX), GUNEX, and MISSILEX. Also included in this mission area is a sinking exercise that may include S-S and A-S components.
The mission of ASW is to locate, neutralize, and defeat hostile submarine threats to surface forces. ASW is based on the principle of a layered defense of surveillance and attack aircraft, ships, and submarines all searching for hostile submarines. These forces operate together or independently to gain early warning and detection, and to localize, track, target, and attack hostile submarine threats.
Anti-submarine warfare training addresses basic skills such as detection and classification of submarines, distinguishing between sounds made by enemy submarines and those of friendly submarines, ships, and marine life. ASW training evaluates the ability of fleet assets to use systems, for example, active and passive sonar and torpedo systems to counter hostile submarine threats. More advanced, integrated ASW training exercises are conducted in coordinated, at-sea training events involving submarines, ships, and aircraft. This training integrates the full spectrum of ASW from detecting and tracking a submarine to attacking a target using simulated weapons.
The Navy uses a variety of sensors, platforms, weapons, and other devices to meet its mission. Training with these systems and devices may introduce acoustic (sound) energy into the environment. The Navy's current LOA application describes underwater sound as one of two types: impulsive and non-impulsive. Sonar and similar sound producing systems are categorized as non-impulsive sound sources. Underwater detonations of explosives and other percussive events are impulsive sounds.
Modern sonar technology includes a variety of sonar sensor and processing systems. In concept, the simplest active sonar emits sound waves, or “pings,” sent out in multiple directions, and the sound waves then reflect off of the target object in multiple directions. The sonar source calculates the time it takes for the reflected sound waves to return; this calculation determines the distance to the target object. More sophisticated active sonar systems emit a ping and then rapidly scan or listen to the sound waves in a specific area. This provides both distance to the target and directional information. Even more advanced sonar systems use multiple receivers to listen to echoes from several directions simultaneously and provide efficient detection of both direction and distance. Active sonar is rarely used continuously throughout the listed activities. In general, when sonar is in use, the sonar ‘pings’ occur at intervals, referred to as a duty cycle, and the signals themselves are very short in duration. For example, sonar that emits a 1-second ping every 10 seconds has a 10 percent duty cycle. The Navy's largest hull-mounted mid-frequency sonar source typically emits a 1-second ping every 50 seconds representing a 2 percent duty cycle. The Navy utilizes sonar systems and other acoustic sensors in support of a variety of
Most ordnance and munitions used during training events fall into three basic categories: Projectiles (such as gun rounds), missiles (including rockets), and bombs. Ordnance can be further defined by their net explosive weight (NEW), which considers the type and quantity of the explosive substance without the packaging, casings, bullets, etc. NEW is the trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalent of energetic material, which is the standard measure of strength of bombs and other explosives. For example, a 5-inch shell fired from a Navy gun is analyzed at approximately 9.5 pounds (lb.) (4.3 kilograms [kg]) of NEW. The Navy also uses non-explosive ordnance in place of explosive ordnance in many training and testing events. Non-explosive ordnance look and perform similarly to explosive ordnance, but lack the main explosive charge.
Naval forces depend on effective defensive countermeasures to protect themselves against missile and torpedo attack. Defensive countermeasures are devices designed to confuse, distract, and confound precision-guided munitions. Defensive countermeasures analyzed in this LOA application include acoustic countermeasures, which are used by surface ships and submarines to defend against torpedo attack. Acoustic countermeasures are either released from ships and submarines, or towed at a distance behind the ship.
In order to better organize and facilitate the analysis of approximately 300 individual sources of underwater acoustic sound or explosive energy, a series of source classifications, or source bins, were developed by the Navy. The use of source classification bins provides the following benefits:
• Provides the ability for new sensors or munitions to be covered under existing regulatory authorizations, as long as those sources fall within the parameters of a “bin”;
• Simplifies the source utilization data collection and reporting requirements anticipated under the MMPA;
• Ensures a conservative approach to all impact analysis, as all sources in a single bin are modeled as the loudest source (
○ Allows analysis to be conducted more efficiently, without compromising the results; and
○ Provides a framework to support the reallocation of source usage (hours/explosives) between different source bins, as long as the total number and severity of marine mammal takes remain within the overall analyzed and authorized limits. This flexibility is required to support evolving Navy training requirements, which are linked to real world events.
There are two primary types of acoustic sources: Impulsive and non-impulsive. A description of each source classification is provided in Tables 1 and 2. Impulsive source class bins are based on the NEW of the munitions or explosive devices or the source level for air and water guns. Non-impulsive acoustic sources are grouped into source class bins based on the frequency,
○ How a sensor is employed supports how the sensor's acoustic emissions are analyzed.
○ Factors considered include pulse length (time source is on); beam pattern (whether sound is emitted as a narrow, focused beam or, as with most explosives, in all directions); and duty cycle (how often or how many times a transmission occurs in a given time period during an event).
As described in the GOA DSEIS/OEIS, non-impulsive acoustic sources that have low source levels (not loud), narrow beam widths, downward directed transmission, short pulse lengths, frequencies beyond known hearing ranges of marine mammals, or some combination of these characteristics, are not anticipated to result in takes of protected species and therefore were not modeled. These sources generally meet the following criteria and are qualitatively analyzed in the GOA DSEIS/OEIS:
The training activities that the Navy proposes to conduct in the Study Area are described in Table 3. The table is organized according to primary mission areas and includes the activity name, associated stressor(s), description of the activity, the primary platform used (
Table 4 provides a quantitative annual summary of training activities by sonar and other active acoustic source class analyzed in the Navy's LOA request.
Table 5 provides a quantitative annual summary of training explosive source classes analyzed in the Navy's LOA request.
Training activities would be conducted in the Study Area during two exercises of up to 21 days each per year (for a total of up to 42 days per year) to support a major joint training exercise in Alaska and off the Alaskan coast that involves the Departments of the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, and the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard). The Service participants report to a unified or joint commander who coordinates the activities planned to demonstrate and evaluate the ability of the services to engage in a conflict and carry out plans in response to a threat to national security. The exercises would occur between the months of May and October of each year from 2016 to 2021.
The Study Area (see Figure 1-1 of the LOA application) is entirely at sea and is composed of the established GOA TMAA and a warning area in the Gulf of Alaska. The Navy uses “at-sea” to include its training activities in the Study Area that occur (1) on the ocean surface, (2) beneath the ocean surface, and (3) in the air above the ocean surface. Navy training activities occurring on or over the land outside the GOA TMAA are covered under previously prepared environmental documentation prepared by the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Army.
The GOA TMAA is a temporary area established in conjunction with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for up to two exercise periods of up to 21 days each, for a total of 42 days per year, that is a surface, undersea space, and airspace maneuver area within the Gulf of Alaska for ships, submarines, and aircraft to conduct required training activities. The GOA TMAA is a polygon roughly resembling a rectangle oriented from northwest to southeast,
The airspace of the GOA TMAA overlies the surface and subsurface training area and is called an Altitude Reservation (ALTRV). This ALTRV is a temporary airspace designation, typically requested by the Alaskan Command (ALCOM) and coordinated through the FAA for the duration of the exercise. This overwater airspace supports the majority of aircraft training activities conducted by Navy and Joint aircraft throughout the joint training exercise. The ALTRV over the GOA TMAA typically extends from the ocean surface to 60,000 feet (ft.) (18,288 meters [m]) above mean sea level and encompasses 42,146 square nautical miles (nm
Additionally, the GOA TMAA overlies a majority of Warning Area W-612 (W-612) located over Blying Sound, towards the northwestern quadrant of the GOA TMAA. When not included as part of the GOA TMAA, W-612 provides 2,256 nm
The GOA TMAA surface and subsurface areas are also depicted in Figure 1-1 of the LOA application. Total surface area of the GOA TMAA is 42,146 nm
The complex bathymetric and oceanographic conditions, including a continental shelf, submarine canyons, numerous seamounts, and fresh water infusions from multiple sources, create a challenging environment in which to search for and detect submarines in ASW training activities. In the summer, the GOA TMAA provides a safe cold-water training environment that resembles other areas where Navy may need to operate in a real-world scenario.
The GOA TMAA meets large-scale joint exercise training objectives to support naval and joint operational readiness by providing a “geographically realistic” training area for U.S. Pacific Command, Joint Task Force Commander scenario-based training, and supports the mission requirement of Alaskan Command (ALCOM) to conduct joint training for Alaska-based forces. The strategic vision of the Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet is that the training area support naval operational readiness by providing a realistic, live-training environment for forces assigned to the Pacific Fleet and other users with the capability and capacity to support current, emerging, and future training requirements.
Marine mammal species known to occur in the Study Area and their currently recognized stocks are presented in Table 6 consistent with the NMFS' U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report (Carretta
The species carried forward for analysis are those likely to be found in the Study Area based on the most recent data available, and do not include stocks or species that may have once inhabited or transited the area but have not been sighted in recent years (
Information on the status, distribution, abundance, and vocalizations of marine mammal species in the Study Area may be viewed in Chapter 4 of the LOA application (
Cetaceans have an auditory anatomy that follows the basic mammalian pattern, with some changes to adapt to the demands of hearing underwater. The typical mammalian ear is divided into an outer ear, middle ear, and inner ear.
Marine mammal vocalizations often extend both above and below the range of human hearing; vocalizations with frequencies lower than 20 Hz are labeled as infrasonic and those higher than 20 kHz as ultrasonic (National Research Council (NRC), 2003; Figure 4-1). Measured data on the hearing abilities of cetaceans are sparse, particularly for the larger cetaceans such as the baleen whales. The auditory thresholds of some of the smaller odontocetes have been determined in captivity. It is generally believed that cetaceans should at least be sensitive to the frequencies of their own vocalizations. Comparisons of the anatomy of cetacean inner ears and models of the structural properties and the response to vibrations of the ear's components in different species provide an indication of likely sensitivity to various sound frequencies. The ears of small toothed whales are optimized for receiving high-frequency sound, while baleen whale inner ears are best in low to infrasonic frequencies (Ketten, 1992; 1997; 1998).
Baleen whale vocalizations are composed primarily of frequencies below 1 kHz, and some contain fundamental frequencies as low as 16 Hz (Watkins
The toothed whales produce a wide variety of sounds, which include species-specific broadband “clicks” with peak energy between 10 and 200 kHz, individually variable “burst pulse” click trains, and constant frequency or frequency-modulated (FM) whistles ranging from 4 to 16 kHz (Wartzok and Ketten, 1999). The general consensus is that the tonal vocalizations (whistles) produced by toothed whales play an important role in maintaining contact between dispersed individuals, while broadband clicks are used during echolocation (Wartzok and Ketten, 1999). Burst pulses have also been strongly implicated in communication, with some scientists suggesting that they play an important role in agonistic encounters (McCowan and Reiss, 1995), while others have proposed that they represent “emotive” signals in a broader sense, possibly representing graded communication signals (Herzing, 1996). Sperm whales, however, are known to produce only clicks, which are used for both communication and echolocation (Whitehead, 2003). Most of the energy of toothed whale social vocalizations is concentrated near 10 kHz, with source levels for whistles as high as 100 to 180 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m (Richardson
An understanding of the basic properties of underwater sound is necessary to comprehend many of the concepts and analyses presented in this proposed rule. A summary is included below.
Sound is a wave of pressure variations propagating through a medium (
Acousticians have adopted a logarithmic scale for sound intensities, which is denoted in decibels (dB). Decibel measurements represent the ratio between a measured pressure value and a reference pressure value (in this case 1 µPa or, for airborne sound, 20 µPa). The logarithmic nature of the scale means that each 10-dB increase is a ten-fold increase in acoustic power (and a 20-dB increase is then a 100-fold increase in power; and a 30-dB increase is a 1,000-fold increase in power). A ten-fold increase in acoustic power does not mean that the sound is perceived as being ten times louder, however. Humans perceive a 10-dB increase in sound level as a doubling of loudness, and a 10-dB decrease in sound level as a halving of loudness. The term “sound pressure level” implies a decibel measure and a reference pressure that is used as the denominator of the ratio. Throughout this proposed rule, NMFS uses 1 µPa (denoted re: 1µPa) as a standard reference pressure unless noted otherwise.
It is important to note that decibel values underwater and decibel values in air are not the same (different reference pressures and densities/sound speeds between media) and should not be directly compared. Because of the different densities of air and water and the different decibel standards (
Sound frequency is measured in cycles per second, or Hertz (abbreviated Hz), and is analogous to musical pitch; high-pitched sounds contain high frequencies and low-pitched sounds contain low frequencies. Natural sounds in the ocean span a huge range of frequencies: From earthquake noise at 5 Hz to harbor porpoise clicks at 150,000 Hz (150 kHz). These sounds are so low or so high in pitch that humans cannot even hear them; acousticians call these infrasonic (typically below 20 Hz) and ultrasonic (typically above 20,000 Hz) sounds, respectively. A single sound may be made up of many different frequencies together. Sounds made up of only a small range of frequencies are called “narrowband”, and sounds with a broad range of frequencies are called “broadband”; explosives are an example of a broadband sound source and active tactical sonars are an example of a narrowband sound source.
When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (Richardson
Southall
When sound travels (propagates) from its source, its loudness decreases as the distance traveled by the sound increases. Thus, the loudness of a sound at its source is higher than the loudness of that same sound a kilometer away. Acousticians often refer to the loudness of a sound at its source (typically referenced to one meter from the source) as the source level and the loudness of sound elsewhere as the received level (
As sound travels from a source, its propagation in water is influenced by various physical characteristics, including water temperature, depth, salinity, and surface and bottom properties that cause refraction, reflection, absorption, and scattering of sound waves. Oceans are not homogeneous and the contribution of each of these individual factors is extremely complex and interrelated. The physical characteristics that determine the sound's speed through the water will change with depth, season, geographic location, and with time of day (as a result, in actual active sonar operations, crews will measure oceanic conditions, such as sea water temperature and depth, to calibrate models that determine the path the sonar signal will take as it travels through the ocean and how strong the sound signal will be at a given range along a particular transmission path). As sound travels through the ocean, the intensity associated with the wavefront diminishes, or attenuates. This decrease in intensity is referred to as propagation loss, also commonly called transmission loss.
This section includes a brief explanation of the two sound measurements (sound pressure level (SPL) and sound exposure level (SEL)) frequently used to describe sound levels in the discussions of acoustic effects in this proposed rule.
Sound pressure level (SPL)—Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, and is usually measured in micropascals (µPa), where 1 Pa is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted over an area of one square meter. SPL is expressed as the
The commonly used reference pressure level in underwater acoustics is 1 µPa, and the units for SPLs are dB re: 1 µPa. SPL is an instantaneous pressure measurement and can be expressed as the peak, the peak-peak, or the root mean square (rms). Root mean square pressure, which is the square root of the arithmetic average of the squared instantaneous pressure values, is typically used in discussions of the effects of sounds on vertebrates and all references to SPL in this proposed rule refer to the root mean square. SPL does not take the duration of exposure into account. SPL is the applicable metric used in the risk continuum, which is used to estimate behavioral harassment takes (see Level B Harassment Risk Function (Behavioral Harassment) Section).
Sound exposure level (SEL)—SEL is an energy metric that integrates the squared instantaneous sound pressure over a stated time interval. The units for SEL are dB re: 1 µPa
As applied to active sonar, the SEL includes both the SPL of a sonar ping and the total duration. Longer duration pings and/or pings with higher SPLs will have a higher SEL. If an animal is exposed to multiple pings, the SEL in each individual ping is summed to calculate the cumulative SEL. The cumulative SEL depends on the SPL, duration, and number of pings received. The thresholds that NMFS uses to indicate at what received level the onset of temporary threshold shift (TTS) and permanent threshold shift (PTS) in hearing are likely to occur are expressed as cumulative SEL.
The Navy has requested authorization for the take of marine mammals that may occur incidental to training activities in the Study Area. The Navy has analyzed potential impacts to marine mammals from impulsive and non-impulsive sound sources.
Other potential impacts to marine mammals from training activities in the Study Area were analyzed in the GOA DSEIS/OEIS, in consultation with NMFS as a cooperating agency, and determined to be unlikely to result in marine mammal harassment. Therefore, the Navy has not requested authorization for take of marine mammals that might occur incidental to other components of their proposed activities. In this proposed rule, NMFS analyzes the potential effects on marine mammals from exposure to non-impulsive sound sources (sonar and other active acoustic sources) and impulsive sound sources (underwater detonations).
For the purpose of MMPA authorizations, NMFS' effects assessments serve four primary purposes: (1) To prescribe the permissible methods of taking (
This section focuses qualitatively on the different ways that non-impulsive and impulsive sources may affect marine mammals (some of which NMFS would not classify as harassment). Then the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section discusses how the potential effects of non-impulsive and impulsive sources on marine mammals will be related to the MMPA definitions of Level A and Level B Harassment, and attempts to quantify those effects.
Based on the literature, there are two basic ways that non-impulsive sources might directly result in physical trauma or damage: Noise-induced loss of hearing sensitivity (more commonly-called “threshold shift”) and acoustically mediated bubble growth. Separately, an animal's behavioral reaction to an acoustic exposure might lead to physiological effects that might ultimately lead to injury or death, which is discussed later in the Stranding section.
The following physiological mechanisms are thought to play a role in inducing auditory TS: Effects to sensory hair cells in the inner ear that reduce their sensitivity, modification of the chemical environment within the sensory cells, residual muscular activity in the middle ear, displacement of certain inner ear membranes, increased blood flow, and post-stimulatory reduction in both efferent and sensory neural output (Southall
PTS is considered auditory injury (Southall
Although the published body of scientific literature contains numerous theoretical studies and discussion papers on hearing impairments that can occur with exposure to a loud sound, only a few studies provide empirical information on the levels at which noise-induced loss in hearing sensitivity occurs in nonhuman animals. For marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Finneran
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
It is unlikely that the short duration of sonar pings would be long enough to drive bubble growth to any substantial size, if such a phenomenon occurs. However, an alternative but related hypothesis has also been suggested: Stable bubbles could be destabilized by high-level sound exposures such that bubble growth then occurs through static diffusion of gas out of the tissues. In such a scenario the marine mammal would need to be in a gas-supersaturated state for a long enough period of time for bubbles to become of a problematic size. Recent research with
Yet another hypothesis (decompression sickness) has speculated that rapid ascent to the surface following exposure to a startling sound might produce tissue gas saturation sufficient for the evolution of nitrogen bubbles (Jepson
Although theoretical predictions suggest the possibility for acoustically mediated bubble growth, there is considerable disagreement among scientists as to its likelihood (Piantadosi and Thalmann, 2004; Evans and Miller, 2003). Crum and Mao (1996) hypothesized that received levels would have to exceed 190 dB in order for there to be the possibility of significant bubble growth due to supersaturation of gases in the blood (
Marine mammals use acoustic signals for a variety of purposes, which differ among species, but include communication between individuals, navigation, foraging, reproduction, and learning about their environment (Erbe and Farmer, 2000; Tyack, 2000). Masking, or auditory interference, generally occurs when sounds in the environment are louder than and of a similar frequency to, auditory signals an animal is trying to receive. Masking is a phenomenon that affects animals that are trying to receive acoustic information about their environment, including sounds from other members of their species, predators, prey, and sounds that allow them to orient in their environment. Masking these acoustic signals can disturb the behavior of individual animals, groups of animals, or entire populations.
The extent of the masking interference depends on the spectral, temporal, and spatial relationships between the signals an animal is trying to receive and the masking noise, in addition to other factors. In humans, significant masking of tonal signals occurs as a result of exposure to noise in a narrow band of similar frequencies. As the sound level increases, though, the detection of frequencies above those of the masking stimulus decreases also. This principle is expected to apply to marine mammals as well because of common biomechanical cochlear properties across taxa.
Richardson
The echolocation calls of toothed whales are subject to masking by high-frequency sound. Human data indicate low-frequency sound can mask high-frequency sounds (
The functional hearing ranges of mysticetes, odontocetes, and pinnipeds underwater all encompass the frequencies of the sonar sources used in the Navy's low-frequency (LF)/MFAS/HFAS training exercises. Additionally, almost all species' vocal repertoires span across the frequencies of these sonar sources used by the Navy. The closer the characteristics of the masking signal to the signal of interest, the more likely masking is to occur. For hull-mounted sonar, which accounts for a large number of the takes of marine mammals (because of the source strength and number of hours it is conducted), the pulse length and low duty cycle of the MFAS/HFAS signal makes it less likely that masking would occur as a result.
In addition to making it more difficult for animals to perceive acoustic cues in their environment, anthropogenic sound presents separate challenges for animals that are vocalizing. When they vocalize, animals are aware of environmental conditions that affect the “active space” of their vocalizations, which is the maximum area within which their vocalizations can be detected before it drops to the level of ambient noise (Brenowitz, 2004; Brumm
Many animals will combine several of these strategies to compensate for high levels of background noise. Anthropogenic sounds that reduce the signal-to-noise ratio of animal vocalizations, increase the masked auditory thresholds of animals listening for such vocalizations, or reduce the active space of an animal's vocalizations impair communication between animals. Most animals that vocalize have evolved strategies to compensate for the effects of short-term or temporary increases in background or ambient noise on their songs or calls. Although the fitness consequences of these vocal adjustments remain unknown, like most other trade-offs animals must make, some of these strategies probably come at a cost (Patricelli
Classic stress responses begin when an animal's central nervous system perceives a potential threat to its homeostasis. That perception triggers stress responses regardless of whether a stimulus actually threatens the animal; the mere perception of a threat is sufficient to trigger a stress response (Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky
In the case of many stressors, an animal's first and sometimes most economical (in terms of biotic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the potential stressor or avoidance of continued exposure to a stressor. An animal's second line of defense to stressors involves the sympathetic part of the autonomic nervous system and the classical “fight or flight” response which includes the cardiovascular system, the gastrointestinal system, the exocrine glands, and the adrenal medulla to produce changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal activity that humans commonly
An animal's third line of defense to stressors involves its neuroendocrine systems; the system that has received the most study has been the hypothalmus-pituitary-adrenal system (also known as the HPA axis in mammals or the hypothalamus-pituitary-interrenal axis in fish and some reptiles). Unlike stress responses associated with the autonomic nervous system, virtually all neuro-endocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction (Moberg, 1987; Rivier, 1995), altered metabolism (Elasser
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and distress is the biotic cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose a risk to the animal's welfare. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other biotic function, which impairs those functions that experience the diversion. For example, when mounting a stress response diverts energy away from growth in young animals, those animals may experience stunted growth. When mounting a stress response diverts energy from a fetus, an animal's reproductive success and its fitness will suffer. In these cases, the animals will have entered a pre-pathological or pathological state which is called “distress” (Seyle, 1950) or “allostatic loading” (McEwen and Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state will last until the animal replenishes its biotic reserves sufficient to restore normal function. Note that these examples involved a long-term (days or weeks) stress response exposure to stimuli.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses have also been documented fairly well through controlled experiments; because this physiology exists in every vertebrate that has been studied, it is not surprising that stress responses and their costs have been documented in both laboratory and free-living animals (for examples see, Holberton
Studies of other marine animals and terrestrial animals would also lead us to expect some marine mammals to experience physiological stress responses and, perhaps, physiological responses that would be classified as “distress” upon exposure to high frequency, mid-frequency and low-frequency sounds. For example, Jansen (1998) reported on the relationship between acoustic exposures and physiological responses that are indicative of stress responses in humans (for example, elevated respiration and increased heart rates). Jones (1998) reported on reductions in human performance when faced with acute, repetitive exposures to acoustic disturbance. Trimper
Hearing is one of the primary senses marine mammals use to gather information about their environment and to communicate with conspecifics. Although empirical information on the relationship between sensory impairment (TTS, PTS, and acoustic masking) on marine mammals remains limited, it seems reasonable to assume that reducing an animal's ability to gather information about its environment and to communicate with other members of its species would be stressful for animals that use hearing as their primary sensory mechanism. Therefore, we assume that acoustic exposures sufficient to trigger onset PTS or TTS would be accompanied by physiological stress responses because terrestrial animals exhibit those responses under similar conditions (NRC, 2003). More importantly, marine mammals might experience stress responses at received levels lower than those necessary to trigger onset TTS. Based on empirical studies of the time required to recover from stress responses (Moberg, 2000), we also assume that stress responses are likely to persist beyond the time interval required for animals to recover from TTS and might result in pathological and pre-pathological states that would
Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific. Many different variables can influence an animal's perception of and response to (nature and magnitude) an acoustic event. An animal's prior experience with a sound or sound source affects whether it is less likely (habituation) or more likely (sensitization) to respond to certain sounds in the future (animals can also be innately pre-disposed to respond to certain sounds in certain ways) (Southall
Exposure of marine mammals to sound sources can result in no response or responses including, but not limited to: Increased alertness; orientation or attraction to a sound source; vocal modifications; cessation of feeding; cessation of social interaction; alteration of movement or diving behavior; habitat abandonment (temporary or permanent); and, in severe cases, panic, flight, stampede, or stranding, potentially resulting in death (Southall
Nowacek
Due to past incidents of beaked whale strandings associated with sonar operations, feedback paths are provided between avoidance and diving and indirect tissue effects. This feedback accounts for the hypothesis that variations in diving behavior and/or avoidance responses can possibly result in nitrogen tissue supersaturation and nitrogen off-gassing, possibly to the point of deleterious vascular bubble formation (Jepson
Maybaum (1993) conducted sound playback experiments to assess the effects of MFAS on humpback whales in Hawaiian waters. Specifically, she exposed focal pods to sounds of a 3.3-kHz sonar pulse, a sonar frequency sweep from 3.1 to 3.6 kHz, and a control (blank) tape while monitoring behavior, movement, and underwater vocalizations. The two types of sonar signals (which both contained mid- and low-frequency components) differed in their effects on the humpback whales, but both resulted in avoidance behavior. The whales responded to the pulse by increasing their distance from the sound source and responded to the frequency sweep by increasing their swimming speeds and track linearity. In the Caribbean, sperm whales avoided exposure to mid-frequency submarine sonar pulses, in the range of 1000 Hz to 10,000 Hz (IWC 2005).
Kvadsheim
In 2007, the first in a series of behavioral response studies, a collaboration by the Navy, NMFS, and other scientists showed one beaked whale (
Tyack
Stimpert
Results from a 2007-2008 study conducted near the Bahamas showed a change in diving behavior of an adult Blainville's beaked whale to playback of MFAS and predator sounds (Boyd
In the 2007-2008 Bahamas study, playback sounds of a potential predator—a killer whale—resulted in a similar but more pronounced reaction, which included longer inter-dive intervals and a sustained straight-line departure of more than 20 km from the area (Boyd
Through analysis of the behavioral response studies, a preliminary overarching effect of greater sensitivity to all anthropogenic exposures was seen in beaked whales compared to the other odontocetes studied (Southall
Southall
In the Southall
The studies that address responses of low-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse sounds include data gathered in the field and related to several types of sound sources (of varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS) including: Vessel noise, drilling and machinery playback, low-frequency M-sequences (sine wave with multiple phase reversals) playback, tactical low-frequency active sonar playback, drill ships, Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) source, and non-pulse playbacks. These studies generally indicate no (or very limited) responses to received levels in the 90 to 120 dB re: 1 μPa range and an increasing likelihood of avoidance and other behavioral effects in the 120 to 160 dB range. As mentioned earlier, though, contextual variables play a very important role in the reported responses and the severity of effects are not linear when compared to received level. Also, few of the laboratory or field datasets had common conditions, behavioral contexts or sound sources, so it is not surprising that responses differ.
The studies that address responses of mid-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse sounds include data gathered both in the field and the laboratory and related to several different sound sources (of varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS) including: Pingers, drilling playbacks, ship and ice-breaking noise, vessel noise, Acoustic Harassment Devices (AHDs), Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs), MFAS, and non-pulse bands and tones. Southall
The studies that address responses of high-frequency cetaceans to non-pulse sounds include data gathered both in the field and the laboratory and related to several different sound sources (of varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS) including: Pingers, AHDs, and various laboratory non-pulse sounds. All of these data were collected from harbor
The studies that address the responses of pinnipeds in water to non-impulsive sounds include data gathered both in the field and the laboratory and related to several different sound sources (of varying similarity to MFAS/HFAS) including: AHDs, ATOC, various non-pulse sounds used in underwater data communication, underwater drilling, and construction noise. Few studies exist with enough information to include them in the analysis. The limited data suggested that exposures to non-pulse sounds between 90 and 140 dB generally do not result in strong behavioral responses in pinnipeds in water, but no data exist at higher received levels.
The different ways that marine mammals respond to sound are sometimes indicators of the ultimate effect that exposure to a given stimulus will have on the well-being (survival, reproduction, etc.) of an animal. There is limited marine mammal data quantitatively relating the exposure of marine mammals to sound to effects on reproduction or survival, though data exists for terrestrial species to which we can draw comparisons for marine mammals.
Attention is the cognitive process of selectively concentrating on one aspect of an animal's environment while ignoring other things (Posner, 1994). Because animals (including humans) have limited cognitive resources, there is a limit to how much sensory information they can process at any time. The phenomenon called “attentional capture” occurs when a stimulus (usually a stimulus that an animal is not concentrating on or attending to) “captures” an animal's attention. This shift in attention can occur consciously or subconsciously (for example, when an animal hears sounds that it associates with the approach of a predator) and the shift in attention can be sudden (Dukas, 2002; van Rij, 2007). Once a stimulus has captured an animal's attention, the animal can respond by ignoring the stimulus, assuming a “watch and wait” posture, or treat the stimulus as a disturbance and respond accordingly, which includes scanning for the source of the stimulus or “vigilance” (Cowlishaw
Vigilance is normally an adaptive behavior that helps animals determine the presence or absence of predators, assess their distance from conspecifics, or to attend cues from prey (Bednekoff and Lima, 1998; Treves, 2000). Despite those benefits, however, vigilance has a cost of time; when animals focus their attention on specific environmental cues, they are not attending to other activities such as foraging. These costs have been documented best in foraging animals, where vigilance has been shown to substantially reduce feeding rates (Saino, 1994; Beauchamp and Livoreil, 1997; Fritz
Several authors have established that long-term and intense disturbance stimuli can cause population declines by reducing the body condition of individuals that have been disturbed, followed by reduced reproductive success, reduced survival, or both (Daan
The primary mechanism by which increased vigilance and disturbance appear to affect the fitness of individual animals is by disrupting an animal's time budget and, as a result, reducing the time they might spend foraging and resting (which increases an animal's activity rate and energy demand). For example, a study of grizzly bears reported that bears disturbed by hikers reduced their energy intake by an average of 12 kcal/minute (50.2 x 10
Lusseau and Bejder (2007) present data from three long-term studies illustrating the connections between disturbance from whale-watching boats and population-level effects in cetaceans. In Sharks Bay Australia, the abundance of bottlenose dolphins was compared within adjacent control and tourism sites over three consecutive 4.5-year periods of increasing tourism levels. Between the second and third time periods, in which tourism doubled, dolphin abundance decreased by 15 percent in the tourism area and did not change significantly in the control area. In Fiordland, New Zealand, two populations (Milford and Doubtful Sounds) of bottlenose dolphins with tourism levels that differed by a factor of seven were observed and significant increases in travelling time and decreases in resting time were documented for both. Consistent short-term avoidance strategies were observed in response to tour boats until a threshold of disturbance was reached (average 68 minutes between interactions), after which the response switched to a longer term habitat displacement strategy. For one population tourism only occurred in a part of the home range, however, tourism occurred throughout the home range of the Doubtful Sound population and once boat traffic increased beyond the 68-minute threshold (resulting in abandonment of their home range/preferred habitat), reproductive success drastically decreased (increased
On a related note, many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Substantive behavioral reactions to noise exposure (such as disruption of critical life functions, displacement, or avoidance of important habitat) are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall
In order to understand how the effects of activities may or may not impact stocks and populations of marine mammals, it is necessary to understand not only what the likely disturbances are going to be, but how those disturbances may affect the reproductive success and survivorship of individuals, and then how those impacts to individuals translate to population changes. Following on the earlier work of a committee of the U.S. National Research Council (NRC, 2005), New
When a live or dead marine mammal swims or floats onto shore and becomes “beached” or incapable of returning to sea, the event is termed a “stranding” (Geraci
Marine mammals are known to strand for a variety of reasons, such as infectious agents, biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery interaction, ship strike, unusual oceanographic or weather events, sound exposure, or combinations of these stressors sustained concurrently or in series. However, the cause or causes of most strandings are unknown (Geraci
Several sources have published lists of mass stranding events of cetaceans in an attempt to identify relationships between those stranding events and military sonar (Hildebrand, 2004; IWC, 2005; Taylor
Most of the stranding events reviewed by the International Whaling Commission involved beaked whales. A mass stranding of Cuvier's beaked whales in the eastern Mediterranean Sea occurred in 1996 (Frantzis, 1998) and mass stranding events involving Gervais' beaked whales, Blainville's beaked whales, and Cuvier's beaked whales occurred off the coast of the Canary Islands in the late 1980s (Simmonds and Lopez-Jurado, 1991). The stranding events that occurred in the Canary Islands and Kyparissiakos Gulf in the late 1990s and the Bahamas in 2000 have been the most intensively-studied mass stranding events and have been associated with naval maneuvers involving the use of tactical sonar.
Between 1960 and 2006, 48 strandings (68 percent) involved beaked whales, three (4 percent) involved dolphins, and 14 (20 percent) involved whale species. Cuvier's beaked whales were involved in the greatest number of these events (48 or 68 percent), followed by sperm whales (seven or 10 percent), and Blainville's and Gervais' beaked whales (four each or 6 percent). Naval activities (not just activities conducted by the U.S. Navy) that might have involved active sonar are reported to have coincided with nine or 10 (13 to 14 percent) of those stranding events. Between the mid-1980s and 2003 (the period reported by the International Whaling Commission), NMFS identified reports of 44 mass cetacean stranding events of which at least seven were coincident with naval exercises that were using MFAS.
These dolphin mortalities are the only known occurrence of a U.S. Navy training or testing event involving impulsive energy (underwater detonation) that caused mortality or injury to a marine mammal (of note, the time-delay firing underwater explosive training activity implicated in the March 4 incident is not proposed for the training activities in the GOA Study Area). Despite this being a rare occurrence, the Navy has reviewed training requirements, safety procedures, and possible mitigation measures and implemented changes to reduce the potential for this to occur in the future. Discussions of procedures associated with underwater explosives training and other training events are presented in the Proposed Mitigation section.
Over the past 16 years, there have been five stranding events coincident with military mid-frequency sonar use in which exposure to sonar is believed to have been a contributing factor: Greece (1996); the Bahamas (2000); Madeira (2000); Canary Islands (2002); and Spain (2006). Additionally, in 2004, during the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises, between 150 and 200 usually pelagic melon-headed whales occupied the shallow waters of Hanalei Bay, Kauai, Hawaii for over 28 hours. NMFS determined that MFAS was a plausible, if not likely, contributing factor in what may have been a confluence of events that led to the stranding. A number of other stranding events coincident with the operation of mid-frequency sonar, including the death of beaked whales or other species (minke whales, dwarf sperm whales, pilot whales), have been reported; however, the majority have not been investigated to the degree necessary to determine the cause of the stranding and only one of these stranding events, the Bahamas (2000), was associated with exercises conducted by the U.S. Navy. Most recently, the Independent Scientific Review Panel investigating potential contributing factors to a 2008 mass stranding of melon-headed whales in Antsohihy, Madagascar released its final report suggesting that the stranding was likely initially triggered by an industry seismic survey. This report suggests that the operation of a commercial high-powered 12 kHz multi-beam echosounder during an industry seismic survey was a plausible and likely initial trigger that caused a large group of melon-headed whales to leave their typical habitat and then ultimately strand as a result of secondary factors such as malnourishment and dehydration. The report indicates that the risk of this particular convergence of factors and ultimate outcome is likely very low, but recommends that the potential be considered in environmental planning. Because of the association between tactical mid-frequency active sonar use and a small number of marine mammal strandings, the Navy and NMFS have been considering and addressing the potential for strandings in association with Navy activities for years. In addition to a suite of mitigation intended to more broadly minimize impacts to marine mammals, the Navy and NMFS have a detailed Stranding Response Plan that outlines reporting, communication, and response protocols intended both to minimize the impacts of, and enhance the analysis of, any potential stranding in areas where the Navy operates.
Necropsies of eight of the animals were performed but were limited to basic external examination and sampling of stomach contents, blood, and skin. No ears or organs were collected, and no histological samples were preserved. No apparent abnormalities or wounds were found. Examination of photos of the animals, taken soon after their death, revealed that the eyes of at least four of the individuals were bleeding. Photos were taken soon after their death (Frantzis, 2004). Stomach contents contained the flesh of cephalopods, indicating that feeding had recently taken place (Frantzis, 1998).
All available information regarding the conditions associated with this stranding event were compiled, and many potential causes were examined including major pollution events, prominent tectonic activity, unusual physical or meteorological events,
Because of the rarity of this mass stranding of Cuvier's beaked whales in the Kyparissiakos Gulf (first one in history), the probability for the two events (the military exercises and the strandings) to coincide in time and location, while being independent of each other, was thought to be extremely low (Frantzis, 1998). However, because full necropsies had not been conducted, and no abnormalities were noted, the cause of the strandings could not be precisely determined (Cox
Necropsies were performed on five of the stranded beaked whales. All five necropsied beaked whales were in good body condition, showing no signs of infection, disease, ship strike, blunt trauma, or fishery related injuries, and three still had food remains in their stomachs. Auditory structural damage was discovered in four of the whales, specifically bloody effusions or hemorrhaging around the ears. Bilateral intracochlear and unilateral temporal region subarachnoid hemorrhage, with blood clots in the lateral ventricles, were found in two of the whales. Three of the whales had small hemorrhages in their acoustic fats (located along the jaw and in the melon).
A comprehensive investigation was conducted and all possible causes of the stranding event were considered, whether they seemed likely at the outset or not. Based on the way in which the strandings coincided with ongoing naval activity involving tactical MFAS use, in terms of both time and geography, the nature of the physiological effects experienced by the dead animals, and the absence of any other acoustic sources, the investigation team concluded that MFAS aboard U.S. Navy ships that were in use during the active sonar exercise in question were the most plausible source of this acoustic or impulse trauma to beaked whales. This sound source was active in a complex environment that included the presence of a surface duct, unusual and steep bathymetry, a constricted channel with limited egress, intensive use of multiple, active sonar units over an extended period of time, and the presence of beaked whales that appear to be sensitive to the frequencies produced by these active sonars. The investigation team concluded that the cause of this stranding event was the confluence of the Navy MFAS and these contributory factors working together, and further recommended that the Navy avoid operating MFAS in situations where these five factors would be likely to occur. This report does not conclude that all five of these factors must be present for a stranding to occur, nor that beaked whales are the only species that could potentially be affected by the confluence of the other factors. Based on this, NMFS believes that the operation of MFAS in situations where surface ducts exist, or in marine environments defined by steep bathymetry and/or constricted channels may increase the likelihood of producing a sound field with the potential to cause cetaceans (especially beaked whales) to strand, and therefore, suggests the need for increased vigilance while operating MFAS in these areas, especially when beaked whales (or potentially other deep divers) are likely present.
The bodies of the three stranded whales were examined post mortem (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 2005), though only one of the stranded whales was fresh enough (24 hours after stranding) to be necropsied (Cox
Several observations on the Madeira stranded beaked whales, such as the pattern of injury to the auditory system, are the same as those observed in the Bahamas strandings. Blood in and around the eyes, kidney lesions, pleural hemorrhages, and congestion in the lungs are particularly consistent with the pathologies from the whales stranded in the Bahamas, and are consistent with stress and pressure related trauma. The similarities in pathology and stranding patterns between these two events suggest that a similar pressure event may have precipitated or contributed to the strandings at both sites (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 2005).
Even though no definitive causal link can be made between the stranding event and naval exercises, certain conditions may have existed in the exercise area that, in their aggregate, may have contributed to the marine mammal strandings (Freitas, 2004): Exercises were conducted in areas of at least 547 fathoms (1,000 m) depth near a shoreline where there is a rapid change in bathymetry on the order of 547 to 3,281 fathoms (1,000 to 6,000 m) occurring across a relatively short
Eight Cuvier's beaked whales, one Blainville's beaked whale, and one Gervais' beaked whale were necropsied, six of them within 12 hours of stranding (Fernandez
The association of NATO MFAS use close in space and time to the beaked whale strandings, and the similarity between this stranding event and previous beaked whale mass strandings coincident with sonar use, suggests that a similar scenario and causative mechanism of stranding may be shared between the events. Beaked whales stranded in this event demonstrated brain and auditory system injuries, hemorrhages, and congestion in multiple organs, similar to the pathological findings of the Bahamas and Madeira stranding events. In addition, the necropsy results of Canary Islands stranding event lead to the hypothesis that the presence of disseminated and widespread gas bubbles and fat emboli were indicative of nitrogen bubble formation, similar to what might be expected in decompression sickness (Jepson
Only one animal, a calf, was known to have died following this event. The animal was noted alive and alone in the Bay on the afternoon of July 4, 2004, and was found dead in the Bay the morning of July 5, 2004. A full necropsy, magnetic resonance imaging, and computerized tomography examination were performed on the calf to determine the manner and cause of death. The combination of imaging, necropsy and histological analyses found no evidence of infectious, internal traumatic, congenital, or toxic factors. Cause of death could not be definitively determined, but it is likely that maternal separation, poor nutritional condition, and dehydration contributed to the final demise of the animal. Although it is not known when the calf was separated from its mother, the animals' movement into the Bay and subsequent milling and re-grouping may have contributed to the separation or lack of nursing, especially if the maternal bond was weak or this was an inexperienced mother with her first calf.
Environmental factors, abiotic and biotic, were analyzed for any anomalous occurrences that would have contributed to the animals entering and remaining in Hanalei Bay. The Bay's bathymetry is similar to many other sites within the Hawaiian Island chain and dissimilar to sites that have been associated with mass strandings in other parts of the U.S. The weather conditions appeared to be normal for that time of year with no fronts or other significant features noted. There was no evidence of unusual distribution, occurrence of predator or prey species, or unusual harmful algal blooms, although Mobley
The Hanalei event was spatially and temporally correlated with RIMPAC. Official sonar training and tracking exercises in the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) warning area did not commence until approximately 8 a.m. on July 3 and were thus ruled out as a possible trigger for the initial movement into the Bay. However, six naval surface vessels transiting to the operational area on July 2 intermittently transmitted active sonar (for approximately 9 hours total from 1:15 p.m. to 12:30 a.m.) as they approached from the south. The potential for these transmissions to have triggered the whales' movement into Hanalei Bay was investigated. Analyses with the information available indicated that animals to the south and east of Kaua'i could have detected active sonar transmissions on July 2, and reached Hanalei Bay on or before 7 a.m. on July 3. However, data limitations regarding the position of the whales prior to their arrival in the Bay, the magnitude of sonar exposure, behavioral responses of melon-headed whales to acoustic stimuli, and other possible relevant factors preclude a conclusive finding regarding the role of sonar in triggering this event. Propagation modeling suggests that transmissions from sonar use during the July 3 exercise in the PMRF warning area may have been detectable at the mouth of the Bay. If the animals responded negatively to these signals, it may have contributed to their continued presence in the Bay. The U.S.
While causation of this stranding event may never be unequivocally determined, NMFS consider the active sonar transmissions of July 2-3, 2004, a plausible, if not likely, contributing factor in what may have been a confluence of events. This conclusion is based on the following: (1) The evidently anomalous nature of the stranding; (2) its close spatiotemporal correlation with wide-scale, sustained use of sonar systems previously associated with stranding of deep-diving marine mammals; (3) the directed movement of two groups of transmitting vessels toward the southeast and southwest coast of Kauai; (4) the results of acoustic propagation modeling and an analysis of possible animal transit times to the Bay; and (5) the absence of any other compelling causative explanation. The initiation and persistence of this event may have resulted from an interaction of biological and physical factors. The biological factors may have included the presence of an apparently uncommon, deep-diving cetacean species (and possibly an offshore, non-resident group), social interactions among the animals before or after they entered the Bay, and/or unknown predator or prey conditions. The physical factors may have included the presence of nearby deep water, multiple vessels transiting in a directed manner while transmitting active sonar over a sustained period, the presence of surface sound ducting conditions, and/or intermittent and random human interactions while the animals were in the Bay.
A separate event involving melon-headed whales and rough-toothed dolphins took place over the same period of time in the Northern Mariana Islands (Jefferson
Veterinary pathologists necropsied the two male and two female Cuvier's beaked whales. According to the pathologists, the most likely primary cause of this type of beaked whale mass stranding event was anthropogenic acoustic activities, most probably anti-submarine MFAS used during the military naval exercises. However, no positive acoustic link was established as a direct cause of the stranding. Even though no causal link can be made between the stranding event and naval exercises, certain conditions may have existed in the exercise area that, in their aggregate, may have contributed to the marine mammal strandings (Freitas, 2004): Exercises were conducted in areas of at least 547 fathoms (1,000 m) depth near a shoreline where there is a rapid change in bathymetry on the order of 547 to 3,281 fathoms (1,000 to 6,000 m) occurring across a relatively short horizontal distance (Freitas, 2004); multiple ships (in this instance, five) were operating MFAS in the same area over extended periods of time (in this case, 20 hours) in close proximity; and exercises took place in an area surrounded by landmasses, or in an embayment. Exercises involving multiple ships employing MFAS near land may have produced sound directed towards a channel or embayment that may have cut off the lines of egress for the affected marine mammals (Freitas, 2004).
Several authors have noted similarities between some of these stranding incidents: They occurred in islands or archipelagoes with deep water nearby, several appeared to have been associated with acoustic waveguides like surface ducting, and the sound fields created by ships transmitting MFAS (Cox
Based on the evidence available, however, NMFS cannot determine whether (a) Cuvier's beaked whale is more prone to injury from high-intensity sound than other species; (b) their behavioral responses to sound makes them more likely to strand; or (c) they are more likely to be exposed to MFAS than other cetaceans (for reasons that remain unknown). Because the association between active sonar exposures and marine mammals mass stranding events is not consistent—some marine mammals strand without being exposed to sonar and some sonar transmissions are not associated with marine mammal stranding events despite their co-occurrence—other risk factors or a grouping of risk factors probably contribute to these stranding events.
Although the confluence of Navy MFAS with the other contributory factors noted in the report was
Although causal relationships between beaked whale stranding events and active sonar remain unknown, several authors have hypothesized that stranding events involving these species in the Bahamas and Canary Islands may have been triggered when the whales changed their dive behavior in a startled response to exposure to active sonar or to further avoid exposure (Cox
Because many species of marine mammals make repetitive and prolonged dives to great depths, it has long been assumed that marine mammals have evolved physiological mechanisms to protect against the effects of rapid and repeated decompressions. Although several investigators have identified physiological adaptations that may protect marine mammals against nitrogen gas supersaturation (alveolar collapse and elective circulation; Kooyman
Zimmer and Tyack (2007) modeled nitrogen tension and bubble growth in several tissue compartments for several hypothetical dive profiles and concluded that repetitive shallow dives (defined as a dive where depth does not exceed the depth of alveolar collapse, approximately 72 m for Ziphius), perhaps as a consequence of an extended avoidance reaction to sonar sound, could pose a risk for decompression sickness and that this risk should increase with the duration of the response. Their models also suggested that unrealistically rapid ascent rates of ascent from normal dive behaviors are unlikely to result in supersaturation to the extent that bubble formation would be expected. Tyack
If marine mammals respond to a Navy vessel that is transmitting active sonar in the same way that they might respond to a predator, their probability of flight responses should increase when they perceive that Navy vessels are approaching them directly, because a direct approach may convey detection and intent to capture (Burger and Gochfeld, 1981, 1990; Cooper, 1997, 1998). The probability of flight responses should also increase as received levels of active sonar increase (and the ship is, therefore, closer) and as ship speeds increase (that is, as approach speeds increase). For example, the probability of flight responses in Dall's sheep (
Despite the many theories involving bubble formation (both as a direct cause of injury (see Acoustically Mediated Bubble Growth Section) and an indirect cause of stranding (See Behaviorally Mediated Bubble Growth Section), Southall
Underwater explosive detonations send a shock wave and sound energy through the water and can release gaseous by-products, create an oscillating bubble, or cause a plume of water to shoot up from the water surface. The shock wave and accompanying noise are of most concern to marine animals. Depending on the intensity of the shock wave and size, location, and depth of the animal, an animal can be injured, killed, suffer non-lethal physical effects, experience hearing related effects with or without behavioral responses, or exhibit temporary behavioral responses or tolerance from hearing the blast sound. Generally, exposures to higher levels of impulse and pressure levels would result in greater impacts to an individual animal.
Injuries resulting from a shock wave take place at boundaries between tissues of different densities. Different velocities are imparted to tissues of different densities, and this can lead to their physical disruption. Blast effects are greatest at the gas-liquid interface (Landsberg, 2000). Gas-containing organs, particularly the lungs and gastrointestinal tract, are especially susceptible (Goertner, 1982; Hill, 1978; Yelverton
Because the ears are the most sensitive to pressure, they are the organs most sensitive to injury (Ketten, 2000). Sound-related damage associated with sound energy from detonations can be theoretically distinct from injury from the shock wave, particularly farther from the explosion. If a noise is audible to an animal, it has the potential to damage the animal's hearing by causing decreased sensitivity (Ketten, 1995). Sound-related trauma can be lethal or sublethal. Lethal impacts are those that result in immediate death or serious debilitation in or near an intense source and are not, technically, pure acoustic trauma (Ketten, 1995). Sublethal impacts include hearing loss, which is caused by exposures to perceptible sounds. Severe damage (from the shock wave) to the ears includes tympanic membrane rupture, fracture of the ossicles, damage to the cochlea, hemorrhage, and cerebrospinal fluid leakage into the middle ear. Moderate injury implies partial hearing loss due to tympanic membrane rupture and blood in the middle ear. Permanent hearing loss also can occur when the hair cells are damaged by one very loud event, as well as by prolonged exposure to a loud noise or chronic exposure to noise. The level of impact from blasts depends on both an animal's location and, at outer zones, on its sensitivity to the residual noise (Ketten, 1995).
There have been fewer studies addressing the behavioral effects of explosives on marine mammals compared to MFAS/HFAS. However, though the nature of the sound waves emitted from an explosion are different (in shape and rise time) from MFAS/HFAS, NMFS still anticipates the same sorts of behavioral responses to result from repeated explosive detonations (a smaller range of likely less severe responses (
Baleen whales have shown a variety of responses to impulse sound sources, including avoidance, reduced surface intervals, altered swimming behavior, and changes in vocalization rates (Richardson
Gray whales migrating along the U.S. west coast showed avoidance responses to seismic vessels by 10 percent of animals at 164 dB re 1 μPa, and by 90 percent of animals at 190 dB re 1 μPa, with similar results for whales in the Bering Sea (Malme 1986, 1988). In contrast, noise from seismic surveys was not found to impact feeding behavior or exhalation rates while resting or diving in western gray whales off the coast of Russia (Yazvenko
Humpback whales showed avoidance behavior at ranges of 5-8 km from a seismic array during observational studies and controlled exposure experiments in western Australia (McCauley, 1998; Todd
Seismic pulses at average received levels of 131 dB re 1 micropascal squared second (μPa
Madsen
A review of behavioral reactions by pinnipeds to impulse noise can be found in Richardson
Ship strikes of cetaceans can cause major wounds, which may lead to the death of the animal. An animal at the surface could be struck directly by a vessel, a surfacing animal could hit the bottom of a vessel, or an animal just below the surface could be cut by a vessel's propeller. The severity of injuries typically depends on the size and speed of the vessel (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Laist
An examination of all known ship strikes from all shipping sources (civilian and military) indicates vessel speed is a principal factor in whether a vessel strike results in death (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Laist
Jensen and Silber (2003) detailed 292 records of known or probable ship strikes of all large whale species from 1975 to 2002. Of these, vessel speed at the time of collision was reported for 58 cases. Of these cases, 39 (or 67 percent) resulted in serious injury or death (19 of those resulted in serious injury as determined by blood in the water, propeller gashes or severed tailstock, and fractured skull, jaw, vertebrae, hemorrhaging, massive bruising or other injuries noted during necropsy and 20 resulted in death). Operating speeds of vessels that struck various species of large whales ranged from 2 to 51 knots. The majority (79 percent) of these strikes occurred at speeds of 13 knots or greater. The average speed that resulted in serious injury or death was 18.6 knots. Pace and Silber (2005) found that the probability of death or serious injury increased rapidly with increasing vessel speed. Specifically, the predicted probability of serious injury or death increased from 45 to 75 percent as vessel speed increased from 10 to 14 knots, and exceeded 90 percent at 17 knots. Higher speeds during collisions result in greater force of impact and also appear to increase the chance of severe injuries or death. While modeling studies have suggested that hydrodynamic forces pulling whales toward the vessel hull increase with increasing speed (Clyne, 1999; Knowlton
The Jensen and Silber (2003) report notes that the database represents a minimum number of collisions, because the vast majority probably goes undetected or unreported. In contrast, Navy vessels are likely to detect any strike that does occur, and they are required to report all ship strikes involving marine mammals. Overall, the percentages of Navy traffic relative to overall large shipping traffic are very small (on the order of 2 percent).
There are no records of any Navy vessel strikes to marine mammals during training or testing activities in the Study Area. There have been Navy vessel strikes of large whales in areas outside the Study Area, such as Hawaii and Southern California. However, these areas differ significantly from the Study Area given that both Hawaii and Southern California have a much higher number of Navy vessel activities and much higher densities of large whales.
Other efforts have been undertaken to investigate the impact from vessels (both whale-watching and general vessel traffic noise) and demonstrated impacts do occur (Bain, 2002; Erbe, 2002; Lusseau, 2009; Williams
Based on the implementation of Navy mitigation measures and the low density of Navy ships in the GOA TMAA, NMFS has concluded, preliminarily, that the probability of a ship strike is very low, especially for dolphins and porpoises, killer whales, social pelagic odontocetes and pinnipeds that are highly visible, and/or comparatively small and maneuverable. Though more probable because of their size, NMFS also believes that the likelihood of a Navy vessel striking a mysticete or sperm whale is also low with the implementation of mitigation measures and the low density of navy ships in the Study Area. The Navy did not request take from a ship strike, and based on our preliminary determination, NMFS is not recommending that they modify their request at this time. However, both NMFS and the Navy are currently engaged in a Section 7 consultation under the ESA, and that consultation will further inform our final decision.
Under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the “permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.” NMFS' duty under this “least practicable adverse impact” standard is to prescribe mitigation reasonably designed to minimize, to the extent practicable, any adverse population-level impacts, as well as habitat impacts. While population-level impacts are minimized by reducing impacts on individual marine mammals, not all takes have a reasonable potential for translating to population-level impacts. NMFS' objective under the “least practicable adverse impact” standard is to design mitigation targeting those impacts on individual marine mammals that are reasonably likely to contribute to adverse population-level effects.
The NDAA of 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to military readiness activities and the ITA process such that “least practicable adverse impact” shall include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the “military readiness activity.” The training and testing activities described in the Navy's LOA application are considered military readiness activities.
In
A population-level impact is an impact on the population numbers (survival) or growth and reproductive rates (recruitment) of a particular marine mammal species or stock. As we noted in the preamble to our general MMPA implementing regulations, not every population-level impact violates the negligible impact requirement. As we explained, the negligible impact standard does not require a finding that the anticipated take will have “no effect” on population numbers or growth rates: “The statutory standard does not require that the same recovery rate be maintained, rather that no significant effect on annual rates of recruitment or survival occurs . . . [T]he key factor is the significance of the level of impact on rates of recruitment or survival. Only insignificant impacts on long-term population levels and trends can be treated as negligible.” See 54 FR 40338, 40341-42 (September 29, 1989). Nevertheless, while insignificant impacts on population numbers or growth rates may satisfy the negligible impact requirement, such impacts still must be mitigated, to the extent practicable, under the “least practicable adverse impact” requirement. Thus, the negligible impact and least practicable adverse impact requirements are clearly distinct, even though both focus on population-level effects.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to accomplishing one or more of the general goals listed below:
a. Avoid or minimize injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals b, c, and d may contribute to this goal).
b. Reduce the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of MFAS/HFAS, underwater detonations, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
c. Reduce the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to received levels of MFAS/HFAS, underwater detonations, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
d. Reduce the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of MFAS/HFAS, underwater detonations, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
e. Avoid or minimize adverse effects to marine mammal habitat (including acoustic habitat), paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.
f. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—increase the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation (shut-down zone, etc.).
Our final evaluation of measures that meet one or more of the above goals includes consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the mitigation measures is expected to reduce population-level impacts to marine mammal species and stocks and impacts to their habitat; the proven or likely efficacy of the measures; and the practicability of the suite of measures
NMFS reviewed the proposed activities and the suite of proposed mitigation measures as described in the Navy's LOA application to determine if they would result in the least practicable adverse effect on marine mammals. NMFS worked with the Navy in the development of the Navy's initially proposed measures, which are informed by years of experience and monitoring. Below are the mitigation measures as agreed upon by the Navy and NMFS. For additional details regarding the Navy's mitigation measures, see Chapter 5 in the GOA DSEIS/OEIS.
The Navy will have two types of Lookouts for the purposes of conducting visual observations: Those positioned on ships; and those positioned ashore, in aircraft, or on small boats. Lookouts positioned on ships will diligently observe the air and surface of the water. They will have multiple observation objectives, which include but are not limited to detecting the presence of biological resources and recreational or fishing boats, observing the mitigation zones, and monitoring for vessel and personnel safety concerns.
Due to manning and space restrictions on aircraft, small boats, and some Navy ships, Lookouts for these platforms may be supplemented by the aircraft crew or pilot, boat crew, range site personnel, or shore-side personnel. Lookouts positioned in minimally manned platforms may be responsible for tasks in addition to observing the air or surface of the water (
The procedural measures described in the remainder of this section primarily consist of having Lookouts during specific training activities.
All personnel standing watch on the bridge, Commanding Officers, Executive Officers, maritime patrol aircraft aircrews, anti-submarine warfare helicopter crews, civilian equivalents, and Lookouts will successfully complete the United States Navy Marine Species Awareness Training prior to standing watch or serving as a Lookout. Additional details on the Navy's Marine Species Awareness Training can be found in the GOA DSEIS/OEIS. The Navy proposes to use one or more Lookouts during the training activities described below, which are organized by stressor category.
The Navy's current Lookout mitigation measures during training activities involving hull-mounted MFAS include requirements such as the number of personnel on watch and the manner in which personnel are to visually search the area in the vicinity of the ongoing activity.
The Navy is proposing to maintain the number of Lookouts currently implemented for ships using hull-mounted MFAS. Ships using hull-mounted MFAS sources associated with ASW activities at sea (with the exception of ships less than 65 ft. [20 m] in length, which are minimally manned) will have two Lookouts at the forward position. While using hull-mounted MFAS sources underway, vessels less than 65 ft. [20 m] in length and ships that are minimally manned will have one Lookout at the forward position due to space and manning restrictions.
The Navy currently conducts activities using high-frequency and non-hull-mounted MFAS in the Study Area. Non-hull-mounted MFAS training activities include the use of aircraft deployed sonobuoys, helicopter dipping sonar, and submarine sonar. During those activities, the Navy employs the following mitigation measures regarding Lookout procedures:
• Navy aircraft participating in exercises at sea shall conduct and maintain, when operationally feasible and safe, surveillance for marine species of concern as long as it does not violate safety constraints or interfere with the accomplishment of primary operational duties.
• Helicopters shall observe/survey the vicinity of an ASW training event for 10 minutes before the first deployment of active (dipping) sonar in the water.
The Navy is proposing to continue using the number of Lookouts (one) currently implemented for aircraft conducting non-hull-mounted MFA sonar activities.
Mitigation measures do not currently exist for other high-frequency active sonar activities associated with ASW, or for new platforms; therefore, the Navy is proposing to add a new Lookout and other measures for these activities and on these platforms when conducted in the Study Area. The recommended measure is provided below.
The Navy will have one Lookout on ships conducting high-frequency or non-hull mounted mid-frequency active sonar activities associated with ASW activities at sea.
The Navy is not proposing use of Improved Extended Echo Ranging Sonobuoys during the GOA TMAA training activities.
Lookout measures do not currently exist for explosive signal underwater sound (SUS) buoy activities using >0.5-2.5 pound (lb.) net explosive weight (NEW). The Navy is proposing to add this measure. Aircraft conducting SUS activities using >0.5-2.5 lb. NEW will have one Lookout.
Currently, the Navy employs the following Lookout procedures during gunnery exercises:
• From the intended firing position, trained Lookouts shall survey the mitigation zone for marine mammals prior to commencement and during the exercise as long as practicable.
• If applicable, target towing vessels shall maintain a Lookout. If a marine mammal is sighted in the vicinity of the exercise, the tow vessel shall immediately notify the firing vessel in order to secure gunnery firing until the area is clear.
The Navy is proposing to continue using the Lookout procedures currently implemented for this activity. The Navy will have one Lookout on the vessel or aircraft conducting small-, medium-, or large-caliber gunnery exercises against a surface target. Towing vessels, if applicable, shall also maintain one Lookout.
Currently, the Navy employs the following Lookout procedures during missile exercises:
• Aircraft shall visually survey the target area for marine mammals. Visual inspection of the target area shall be made by flying at 1,500 ft. (457 m) or lower, if safe to do so, and at slowest safe speed.
• Firing or range clearance aircraft must be able to actually see ordnance impact areas.
The Navy is proposing to continue using the Lookout procedures currently implemented for this activity. When aircraft are conducting missile exercises against a surface target, the Navy will have one Lookout positioned in an aircraft.
Currently, the Navy employs the following Lookout procedures during bombing exercises:
• If surface vessels are involved, Lookouts shall survey for floating kelp and marine mammals.
• Aircraft shall visually survey the target and buffer zone for marine mammals prior to and during the exercise. The survey of the impact area shall be made by flying at 1,500 ft. (460 m) or lower, if safe to do so, and at the slowest safe speed. Release of ordnance through cloud cover is prohibited: Aircraft must be able to actually see ordnance impact areas. Survey aircraft should employ most effective search tactics and capabilities.
The Navy is proposing to (1) continue implementing the current measures for bombing exercises, and (2) clarify the number of Lookouts currently implemented for this activity. The Navy will have one Lookout positioned in an aircraft conducting bombing exercises, and trained Lookouts in any surface vessels involved.
The Navy is proposing to continue using the number of Lookouts currently implemented for gunnery exercises. The Navy will have one Lookout on the ship conducting explosive and non-explosive gunnery exercises. This may be the same Lookout described for Gunnery Exercises—Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Using a Surface Target when that activity is conducted from a ship against a surface target.
The Navy is proposing to continue using the number of Lookouts currently implemented for this activity. The Navy will have two Lookouts (one positioned in an aircraft and one on a vessel) during sinking exercises.
Currently, the Navy employs the following Lookout procedures to avoid physical disturbance and strike of marine mammals during at-sea training:
• While underway, surface vessels shall have at least two Lookouts with binoculars; surfaced submarines shall have at least one Lookout with binoculars. Lookouts already posted for safety of navigation and man-overboard precautions may be used to fill this requirement. As part of their regular duties, Lookouts will watch for and report to the Officer of the Deck the presence of marine mammals.
Consistent with other ongoing Navy Phase 2 training and testing (NWTT, MITT, AFTT, HSTT), the Navy is proposing to revise the mitigation measures for this activity as follows: While underway, vessels will have a minimum of one Lookout.
Currently, the Navy employs the same mitigation measures for non-explosive practice munitions—small-, medium-, and large-caliber gunnery exercises—as described above for Gunnery Exercises—Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Using a Surface Target.
The Navy is proposing to continue using the number of Lookouts currently implemented for these activities. The Navy will have one Lookout during activities involving non-explosive practice munitions (
Currently, the Navy employs the same mitigation measures for non-explosive missile exercises (including rockets) using a surface target as described for Missile Exercises Using a Surface Target (explosive).
The Navy is proposing to continue using the number of Lookouts currently implemented for these activities. When aircraft are conducting non-explosive missile exercises (including exercises using rockets) against a surface target, the Navy will have one Lookout positioned in an aircraft.
Currently, the Navy employs the same mitigation measures for non-explosive bombing exercises as described for Bombing Exercises (Explosive).
The Navy is proposing to continue using the same Lookout procedures currently implemented for these activities. The Navy will have one Lookout positioned in an aircraft during non-explosive bombing exercises, and trained Lookouts in any surface vessels involved.
The Navy proposes to use mitigation zones to reduce the potential impacts to marine mammals from training activities. Mitigation zones are measured as the radius from a source. Unique to each activity category, each radius represents a distance that the Navy will visually observe to help reduce injury to marine species. Visual detections of applicable marine species will be communicated immediately to the appropriate watch station for information dissemination and appropriate action. If the presence of marine mammals is detected acoustically, Lookouts posted in aircraft and on surface vessels will increase the vigilance of their visual surveillance. As a reference, aerial surveys are typically made by flying at 1,500 ft. (457 m) altitude or lower at the slowest safe speed.
Many of the proposed activities have mitigation measures that are currently being implemented, as required by previous environmental documents or consultations. Most of the current mitigation zones for activities that involve the use of impulsive and non-impulsive sources were originally designed to reduce the potential for onset of TTS. For the GOA DSEIS/OEIS and the LOA application, the Navy updated the acoustic propagation modeling to incorporate updated hearing threshold metrics (
As a result of the updates to the acoustic propagation modeling, in some cases the ranges to onset of TTS effects are much larger than previous model outputs. Due to the ineffectiveness and unacceptable operational impacts associated with mitigating these large areas, the Navy is unable to mitigate for onset of TTS for every activity. In this GOA TMAA analysis, the Navy developed each recommended mitigation zone to avoid or reduce the potential for onset PTS, out to the predicted maximum range. In some cases where the ranges to effects are smaller than previous models estimated, the mitigation zones were adjusted accordingly to provide consistency
The activity-specific mitigation zones are based on the longest range for all the functional hearing groups. The mitigation zone for a majority of activities is driven by either the high-frequency cetaceans or the sea turtles functional hearing groups. Therefore, the mitigation zones are even more protective for the remaining functional hearing groups (
This evaluation includes explosive ranges to TTS and the onset of auditory injury, non-auditory injury, slight lung injury, and mortality. For every source proposed for use by the Navy, the recommended mitigation zones included in Table 8 exceed each of these ranges. In some instances, the Navy recommends mitigation zones that are larger or smaller than the predicted maximum range to PTS based on the effectiveness and operational assessments. The recommended mitigation zones and their associated assessments are provided throughout the remainder of this section. The recommended measures are either currently implemented, are modifications of current measures, or are new measures.
For some activities specified throughout the remainder of this section, Lookouts may be required to observe for concentrations of detached floating vegetation (Sargassum or kelp paddies), which are indicators of potential marine mammal presence within the mitigation zone. Those specified activities will not commence if floating vegetation (Sargassum or kelp paddies) is observed within the mitigation zone prior to the initial start of the activity. If floating vegetation is observed prior to the initial start of the activity, the activity will be relocated to an area where no floating vegetation is observed. Training will not cease as a result of indicators entering the mitigation zone after activities have commenced. This measure is intended only for floating vegetation detached from the seafloor.
The Navy is proposing to (1) continue implementing the current measures for MFAS and (2) to clarify the conditions needed to recommence an activity after a marine mammal has been detected.
Activities that involve the use of hull-mounted MFA sonar will use Lookouts for visual observation from a ship immediately before and during the activity. Mitigation zones for these activities involve powering down the sonar by 6 dB when a marine mammal is sighted within 1,000 yd. (914 m) of the sonar dome, and by an additional 4 dB when sighted within 500 yd. (457 m) from the source, for a total reduction of 10 dB. Active transmissions will cease if a marine mammal is sighted within 200 yd. (183 m). Active transmission will recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes, (4) the ship has transited more than 2,000 yd. (1.8 km) beyond the location of the last sighting, or (5) the ship concludes that dolphins are deliberately closing in on the ship to ride the ship's bow wave (and there are no other marine mammal sightings within the mitigation zone). Active transmission may resume when dolphins are bow riding because they are out of the main transmission axis of the active sonar while in the shallow-wave area of the ship bow.
Non-hull-mounted MFA sonar training activities include the use of aircraft deployed sonobuoys and helicopter dipping sonar. The Navy is proposing to: (1) Continue implementing the current mitigation measures for activities currently being executed, such as dipping sonar activities; (2) extend the implementation of its current mitigation to all other activities in this category; and (3) clarify the conditions needed to recommence an activity after a sighting. The recommended measures are provided below.
Mitigation will include visual observation from a vessel or aircraft (with the exception of platforms operating at high altitudes) immediately before and during active transmission within a mitigation zone of 200 yd. (183 m) from the active sonar source. For activities involving helicopter deployed dipping sonar, visual observation will commence 10 minutes before the first deployment of active dipping sonar. Helicopter dipping and sonobuoy deployment will not begin if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies), are observed in the mitigation zone. If the source can be turned off during the activity, active transmission will cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Active transmission will recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 10 minutes for an aircraft-deployed source, (4) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes for a vessel-deployed source, (5) the vessel or aircraft has repositioned itself more than 400 yd. (370 m) away from the location of the last sighting, or (6) the vessel concludes that dolphins are deliberately closing in to ride the vessel's bow wave (and there are no other marine mammal sightings within the mitigation zone).
Mitigation measures do not currently exist for activities using explosive signal underwater sound (SUS) buoys.
The Navy is proposing to add the following recommended measures. Mitigation will include pre-exercise aerial monitoring during deployment within a mitigation zone of 350 yd. (320 m) around an explosive SUS buoy. Explosive SUS buoys will not be deployed if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone (around the intended deployment location). SUS deployment will cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Deployment will recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 10 minutes.
Passive acoustic monitoring will also be conducted with Navy assets, such as sonobuoys, already participating in the activity. These assets would only detect vocalizing marine mammals within the frequency bands monitored by Navy personnel. Passive acoustic detections would not provide range or bearing to detected animals, and therefore cannot provide locations of these animals. Passive acoustic detections would be reported to Lookouts posted in aircraft in order to increase vigilance of their visual surveillance.
The Navy is proposing to (1) continue implementing the current mitigation measures for this activity, (2) clarify the conditions needed to recommence an activity after a sighting, and (3) add a requirement to visually observe for kelp paddies.
Mitigation will include visual observation from a vessel or aircraft immediately before and during the exercise within a mitigation zone of 200 yd. (183 m) around the intended impact location. Vessels will observe the mitigation zone from the firing position. When aircraft are firing, the aircrew will maintain visual watch of the mitigation zone during the activity. The exercise will not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Firing will cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Firing will recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 10 minutes for a firing aircraft, (4) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes for a firing ship, or (5) the intended target location has been repositioned more than 400 yd. (366 m) away from the location of the last sighting.
The Navy is proposing to (1) continue using the currently implemented mitigation zone measures for this activity, (2) clarify the conditions needed to recommence an activity after a sighting, and (3) implement a requirement to visually observe for kelp paddies. The recommended measures are provided below.
Mitigation will include visual observation from a ship immediately before and during the exercise within a mitigation zone of 600 yd. (549 m) around the intended impact location. Ships will observe the mitigation zone
Currently, the Navy employs a mitigation zone of 1,800 yd. (1.6 km) for all missile exercises. Because missiles have a wide range of warhead strength, the Navy is recommending two mitigation zones; one for missiles with warheads 250 lb. NEW and less, and a larger mitigation zone for missiles with larger warheads. The Navy is proposing to (1) modify the mitigation measures currently implemented for missile exercises involving missiles with 250 lb. NEW and smaller warheads by reducing the mitigation zone from 1,800 yd. (1.6 km) to 900 yd. (823 m). This new, reduced mitigation zone is a result of the most recent acoustic propogation modeling efforts (NAEMO) for the GOA TMAA and is based on a range to effect that is smaller than previously modeled for missile exercises using a surface target (as discussed below, the Navy is proposing to increase the mitigation zone for missiles with a NEW >250 lb.), (2) clarify the conditions needed to recommence an activity after a sighting, and (3) adopt the marine mammal mitigation zone size for floating vegetation for ease of implementation. The recommended measures are provided below.
When aircraft are involved in the missile firing, mitigation will include visual observation by the aircrew or supporting aircraft prior to commencement of the activity within a mitigation zone of 900 yd. (823 m) around the deployed target. The exercise will not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Firing will cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Firing will recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 10 minutes or 30 minutes (depending on aircraft type).
Current mitigation measures apply to all missile exercises, regardless of the warhead size. The Navy proposes to add a mitigation zone that applies only to missiles with a NEW of 251 to 500 lb. The recommended measures are provided below.
When aircraft are involved in the missile firing, mitigation will include visual observation by the aircrew prior to commencement of the activity within a mitigation zone of 2,000 yd. (1.8 km) around the intended impact location. The exercise will not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Firing will cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Firing will recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 10 minutes or 30 minutes (depending on aircraft type).
Currently, the Navy employs the following mitigation zone procedures during bombing exercises:
• Ordnance shall not be targeted to impact within 1,000 yd. (914 m) of known or observed floating kelp or marine mammals.
• A 1,000 yd. (914 m) radius mitigation zone shall be established around the intended target.
• The exercise will be conducted only if marine mammals are not visible within the mitigation zone.
The Navy is proposing to (1) maintain the existing mitigation zone to be used for non-explosive bombing activities, (2) revise the mitigation zone procedures to account for predicted ranges to impacts to marine species when high explosive bombs are used, (3) clarify the conditions needed to recommence an activity after a sighting, and (4) add a requirement to visually observe for kelp paddies.
Mitigation will include visual observation from the aircraft immediately before the exercise and during target approach within a mitigation zone of 2,500 yd. (2.3 km) around the intended impact location for explosive bombs and 1,000 yd. (920 m) for non-explosive bombs. The exercise will not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Bombing will cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Bombing will recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 10 minutes.
The Navy is proposing to (1) modify the mitigation measures currently implemented for this activity by increasing the mitigation zone from 2.0 nm to 2.5 nm, (2) clarify the conditions needed to recommence an activity after a sighting, (3) add a requirement to visually observe for kelp paddies, and (4) adopt the marine mammal and sea turtle mitigation zone size for concentrations of floating vegetation and aggregations of jellyfish for ease of implementation. The recommended measures are provided below.
Mitigation will include visual observation within a mitigation zone of 2.5 nm around the target ship hulk. Sinking exercises will include aerial observation beginning 90 minutes before the first firing, visual observations from vessels throughout the duration of the exercise, and both aerial and vessel observation immediately after any planned or unplanned breaks in weapons firing of longer than 2 hours. Prior to conducting the exercise, the Navy will review remotely sensed sea surface temperature and sea surface height maps to aid in deciding where to release the target ship hulk.
The Navy will also monitor using passive acoustics during the exercise. Passive acoustic monitoring would be conducted with Navy assets, such as passive ships sonar systems or sonobuoys, already participating in the activity. These assets would only detect vocalizing marine mammals within the frequency bands monitored by Navy personnel. Passive acoustic detections would not provide range or bearing to detected animals, and therefore cannot provide locations of these animals. Passive acoustic detections would be reported to Lookouts posted in aircraft and on vessels in order to increase vigilance of their visual surveillance. Lookouts will also increase observation vigilance before the use of torpedoes or unguided ordnance with a NEW of 500 lb. or greater, or if the Beaufort sea state is a 4 or above.
The exercise will not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the
The Navy currently has no mitigation zone procedures for this activity in the Study Area.
The Navy is proposing to adopt measures currently used during Navy gunnery exercises in other ranges outside of the Study Area. For all explosive and non-explosive large-caliber gunnery exercises conducted from a ship, mitigation will include visual observation immediately before and during the exercise within a mitigation zone of 70 yd. (46 m) within 30 degrees on either side of the gun target line on the firing side. The exercise will not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Firing will cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Firing will recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes, or (4) the vessel has repositioned itself more than 140 yd. (128 m) away from the location of the last sighting.
The Navy's current measures to mitigate potential impacts to marine mammals from vessel and in-water device strikes during training activities are provided below:
• Naval vessels shall maneuver to keep at least 500 yd. (457 m) away from any observed whale in the vessel's path and avoid approaching whales head-on. These requirements do not apply if a vessel's safety is threatened, such as when change of course will create an imminent and serious threat to a person, vessel, or aircraft, and to the extent vessels are restricted in their ability to maneuver. Restricted maneuverability includes, but is not limited to, situations when vessels are engaged in dredging, submerged activities, launching and recovering aircraft or landing craft, minesweeping activities, replenishment while underway and towing activities that severely restrict a vessel's ability to deviate course.
• Vessels will take reasonable steps to alert other vessels in the vicinity of the whale. Given rapid swimming speeds and maneuverability of many dolphin species, naval vessels would maintain normal course and speed on sighting dolphins unless some condition indicated a need for the vessel to maneuver.
The Navy currently has no mitigation zone procedures for this activity in the Study Area.
The Navy is proposing to adopt measures currently used in other ranges outside of the Study Area during activities involving towed in-water devices. The Navy will ensure that towed in-water devices being towed from manned platforms avoid coming within a mitigation zone of 250 yd. (229 m) around any observed marine mammal, providing it is safe to do so.
Currently, the Navy employs the same mitigation measures for non-explosive gunnery exercises as described above for Gunnery Exercises—Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Using a Surface Target.
The Navy is proposing to (1) continue using the mitigation measures currently implemented for this activity, and (2) clarify the conditions needed to recommence an activity after a sighting. The recommended measures are provided below.
Mitigation will include visual observation from a vessel or aircraft immediately before and during the exercise within a mitigation zone of 200 yd. (183 m) around the intended impact location. The exercise will not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Firing will cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Firing will recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 10 minutes for a firing aircraft, (4) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes for a firing ship, or (5) the intended target location has been repositioned more than 400 yd. (366 m) away from the location of the last sighting.
The Navy is proposing to continue using the mitigation measures currently implemented for this activity. The recommended measure includes clarification of a post-sighting activity recommencement criterion.
Mitigation will include visual observation from the aircraft immediately before the exercise and during target approach within a mitigation zone of 1,000 yd. (914 m) around the intended impact location. The exercise will not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Bombing will cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Bombing will recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 10 minutes.
The Navy is proposing to (1) modify the mitigation measures currently
When aircraft are firing, mitigation will include visual observation by the aircrew or supporting aircraft prior to commencement of the activity within a mitigation zone of 900 yd. (823 m) around the deployed target. The exercise will not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Firing will cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Firing will recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: (1) The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, (2) the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course and speed and the relative motion between the animal and the source, or (3) the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 10 minutes or 30 minutes (depending on aircraft type).
The Navy's and NMFS' analysis of effects to marine mammals considers emergent science regarding locations where cetaceans are known to engage in specific activities (
The Navy and NMFS have supported and will continue to support the Cetacean and Sound Mapping project, including representation on the Cetacean Density and distribution Working Group (CetMap), which informed NMFS' identification of BIAs. The same marine mammal density data present in the Navy's Marine Species Density Database Technical Report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014) and used in the analysis for the GOA SEIS/OEIS was used in the development of BIAs. The final products, including the Gulf of Alaska BIAs, from this mapping effort were completed and published in March 2015 (Aquatic Mammals, 2015; Calambokidis
NMFS' Office of Protected Resources routinely considers available information about marine mammal habitat use to inform discussions with applicants regarding potential spatio-temporal limitations on their activities that might help effect the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat. BIAs are useful tools for planning and impact assessments and are being provided to the public via this Web site:
Given their current extremely low population numbers and the general lack of sightings in the Gulf of Alaska, the occurrence of right whales in the GOA TMAA is considered rare. North Pacific right whales have not been visually detected in the GOA TMAA since at least the 1960s. The Quinn Seamount passive acoustic detections in summer 2013 (Širović
In short, the corners of and edge of the GOA TMAA are seldom if ever a suitable location for sustained, realistic, and coordinated training using sonar and other active acoustic sources or explosives. The Navy has lookouts and mitigation measures in place to maneuver away from and around marine mammals, and Navy vessels and aircraft are no more likely to cause any impact to these species than any other non-Navy vessels or aircraft in the area. The Navy's stand-off distance for vessels of 500 yd. (457 m) and mitigation procedures (see Proposed Mitigation) further reduce the potential that there would be any biologically meaningful effect to feeding or migration should animals be present and detected during a very unlikely Navy training event using sonar and other active acoustic sources or explosives in one of these overlapping NMFS-identified areas. Therefore, North Pacific right whales and gray whales in the NMFS-identified feeding or migration areas at these boundaries of the GOA TMAA are very unlikely to have their feeding or migration activities affected by Navy training activities using sonar and other active acoustic sources.
NMFS and the Navy developed a Stranding Response Plan for GOA TMAA in 2011 as part of the previous (2011-2016) incidental take authorization and rulemaking process for the Study Area. The Stranding Response Plan is specifically intended to outline the applicable requirements in the event that a marine mammal stranding is reported in the complexes during a major training exercise. NMFS considers all plausible causes within the course of a stranding investigation and this plan in no way presumes that any strandings are related to, or caused by, Navy training activities, absent a determination made during investigation. The plan is designed to address mitigation, monitoring, and compliance. The current Stranding Response Plan for the GOA TMAA is available for review at:
NMFS has carefully evaluated the Navy's proposed mitigation measures—many of which were developed with NMFS' input during the first phase of Navy Training authorizations—and considered a broad range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the mitigation measures is expected to reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude of adverse impacts to marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat; the proven or likely efficacy of the measures; and the practicability of the suite of measures for applicant implementation, including consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Based on our evaluation of the Navy's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined preliminarily that the Navy's proposed mitigation measures (especially when the adaptive management component is taken into consideration (see Adaptive Management, below)) are adequate means of effecting the least practicable adverse impacts on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, while also considering personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
The proposed rule comment period provides the public an opportunity to submit recommendations, views, and/or concerns regarding this action and the proposed mitigation measures. While NMFS has determined preliminarily that the Navy's proposed mitigation measures would affect the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, NMFS will consider all public comments to help inform our final
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that in order to issue an ITA for an activity, NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking”. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for LOAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present.
The Navy's ICMP is intended to coordinate monitoring efforts across all regions and to allocate the most appropriate level and type of effort for each range complex based on a set of standardized objectives, and in acknowledgement of regional expertise and resource availability. The ICMP is designed to be a flexible, scalable, and adaptable through the adaptive management and strategic planning processes to periodically assess progress and reevaluate objectives. Although the ICMP does not specify actual monitoring field work or projects, it does establish top-level goals that have been developed in coordination with NMFS. As the ICMP is implemented, detailed and specific studies will be developed which support the Navy's top-level monitoring goals. In essence, the ICMP directs that monitoring activities relating to the effects of Navy training and testing activities on marine species should be designed to contribute towards one or more of the following top-level goals:
• An increase in our understanding of the likely occurrence of marine mammals and/or ESA-listed marine species in the vicinity of the action (
• An increase in our understanding of the nature, scope, or context of the likely exposure of marine mammals and/or ESA-listed species to any of the potential stressor(s) associated with the action (
• An increase in our understanding of how individual marine mammals or ESA-listed marine species respond (behaviorally or physiologically) to the specific stressors associated with the action (in specific contexts, where possible,
• An increase in our understanding of how anticipated individual responses, to individual stressors or anticipated combinations of stressors, may impact either: (1) The long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) the population, species, or stock (
• An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of mitigation and monitoring measures;
• A better understanding and record of the manner in which the authorized entity complies with the ITA and Incidental Take Statement;
• An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals (through improved technology or methods), both specifically within the safety zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general, to better achieve the above goals; and
• A reduction in the adverse impact of activities to the least practicable level, as defined in the MMPA.
Monitoring would address the ICMP top-level goals through a collection of specific regional and ocean basin studies based on scientific objectives. Quantitative metrics of monitoring effort (
The Navy also developed the Strategic Planning Process for Marine Species Monitoring, which establishes the guidelines and processes necessary to develop, evaluate, and fund individual projects based on objective scientific study questions. The process uses an underlying framework designed around top-level goals, a conceptual framework incorporating a progression of knowledge, and in consultation with a Scientific Advisory Group and other regional experts. The Strategic Planning Process for Marine Species Monitoring would be used to set intermediate scientific objectives, identify potential species of interest at a regional scale, and evaluate and select specific monitoring projects to fund or continue supporting for a given fiscal year. This process would also address relative investments to different range complexes based on goals across all range complexes, and monitoring would leverage multiple techniques for data acquisition and analysis whenever possible. The Strategic Planning Process for Marine Species Monitoring is also available online (
NMFS has received multiple years' worth of annual exercise and monitoring reports addressing active sonar use and explosive detonations within the GOA TMAA and other Navy range complexes. The data and information contained in these reports have been considered in developing mitigation and monitoring measures for the proposed training activities within the Study Area. The Navy's annual exercise and monitoring reports may be viewed at:
1. The Navy has shown significant initiative in developing its marine species monitoring program and made considerable progress toward reaching goals and objectives of the ICMP.
2. Observation data from watchstanders aboard navy vessels is generally useful to indicate the presence or absence of marine mammals within the mitigation zones (and sometimes beyond) and to document the implementation of mitigation measures, but does not provide useful species-specific information or behavioral data.
3. Data gathered by experienced marine mammal observers can provide very valuable information at a level of detail not possible with watchstanders.
4. Though it is by no means conclusive, it is worth noting that no instances of obvious behavioral disturbance have been observed by Navy watchstanders or experienced marine mammal observers conducting visual monitoring.
5. Visual surveys generally provide suitable data for addressing questions of distribution and abundance of marine mammals, but are much less effective at providing information on movements and behavior, with a few notable exceptions where sightings are most frequent.
6. Passive acoustics and animal tagging have significant potential for applications addressing animal movements and behavioral response to Navy training activities, but require a longer time horizon and heavy investment in analysis to produce relevant results.
7. NMFS and the Navy should more carefully consider what and how information should be gathered by watchstanders during training exercises and monitoring events, as some reports contain different information, making cross-report comparisons difficult.
This section is a summary of Navy-funded compliance monitoring in the GOA TMAA since 2011. Additional Navy-funded monitoring outside of and in addition to the Navy's commitments to NMFS is provided later in this section.
In July 2011, the Navy funded deployment of two long-term bottom-mounted passive acoustic monitoring buoys by Scripps Institute of Oceanography. These HARPs were deployed southeast of Kenai Peninsula in the GOA TMAA with one on the shelf approximately 50 nm from land (in 111 fathoms [203 m] depth) and on the shelf-break slope approximately 100 nm from land (in 492 fathoms [900 m] depth). Intended to be collected annually, results from the first deployment (July 2011-May 2012) included over 5,756 hours of passive acoustic data (Baumann-Pickering
Analysis of the passive acoustic detections made from May 2012 to June 2013 were presented in Baumann-Pickering
As also presented in Debich
In the Gulf of Alaska, the Navy has also funded two previous marine mammal surveys to gather occurrence and density data. Although there was no regulatory requirement for the Navy to undertake either survey, the Navy funded the data collection to first support analysis of potential effects for the 2011 GOA FEIS/OEIS and again recently to support the current SEIS/OEIS. The first Navy-funded survey (GOALS) was conducted by NMFS in April 2009 (see Rone
• Assess the abundance, spatial distribution and/or density of marine mammals, with a focus on beaked whales and ESA-listed cetacean species through visual line-transect surveys and passive acoustics using a towed hydrophone array and sonobuoys
• Increase knowledge of species' vocal repertoire by linking visual sightings to vocally active cetaceans, in order to improve the effectiveness of passive acoustic monitoring
• Attempt to photo-identify and biopsy sample individual whales opportunistically for analysis of population structure, genetics and habitat use
• Attempt to locate whales for opportunistic satellite tagging using visual and passive acoustic methodology in order to provide information on both large- and fine-scale movements and habitat use of cetaceans
The Navy-funded GOALS II survey also sampled four distinct habitat areas (shelf, slope, offshore, and seamounts) which were partitioned into four strata. The survey design was intended to provide uniform coverage within the Gulf of Alaska. However, given the overall limited knowledge of beaked whales within the Gulf of Alaska, the survey was also designed to provide coverage of potential beaked whale habitat and resulted in 13 encounters with beaked whales numbering 67 individual animals (Rone
NMFS has acknowledged that the Navy's GOA TMAA monitoring will enhance understanding of marine mammal vocalizations and distributions within the offshore waters of the Gulf of Alaska. Additionally, NMFS pointed out that information gained from the investigations associated with the Navy's monitoring may be used in the adaptive management of monitoring measures in subsequent NMFS authorizations, if appropriate and in consultation with NMFS. The Navy is committed to structuring the Navy-sponsored research and monitoring program to address both NMFS' regulatory requirements as part of any MMPA authorizations while at the same time making significant contributions to the greater body of marine mammal science (see U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013f).
In one effort between May 2010 and May 2013, satellite tracking tags were placed on three gray whales, 11 fin whales, five humpback whales, and two killer whales off the Washington coast (Schorr
Based on NMFS-Navy meetings in June and October 2011, and the upcoming annual monitoring meeting scheduled for March 2016, future Navy compliance monitoring, including ongoing monitoring, will address ICMP top-level goals through a series of regional and ocean basin study questions with a prioritization and funding focus on species of interest as identified for each range complex. The ICMP will also address relative investments to different range complexes based on goals across all range complexes, and monitoring will leverage multiple techniques for data acquisition and analysis whenever possible.
Within the GOA TMAA Study Area, the Navy's monitoring for GOA TMAA under this LOA authorization and concurrently in other areas of the Pacific Ocean will therefore be structured to address region-specific species-specific study questions in consultation with NMFS.
The outcome of the March 2016 Navy-NMFS monitoring meeting, including any proposed monitoring during the period covered by this proposed rule
The U.S. Navy is one of the world's leading organizations in assessing the effects of human activities on the marine environment including marine mammals. From 2004 through 2013, the Navy has funded over $240M specifically for marine mammal research. Navy scientists work cooperatively with other government researchers and scientists, universities, industry, and non-governmental conservation organizations in collecting, evaluating, and modeling information on marine resources. They also develop approaches to ensure that these resources are minimally impacted by existing and future Navy operations. It is imperative that the Navy's R&D efforts related to marine mammals are conducted in an open, transparent manner with validated study needs and requirements. The goal of the Navy's R&D program is to enable collection and publication of scientifically valid research as well as development of techniques and tools for Navy, academic, and commercial use. Historically, R&D programs are funded and developed by the Navy's Chief of Naval Operations Energy and Environmental Readiness Division (OPNAV N45) and Office of Naval Research (ONR), Code 322 Marine Mammals and Biological Oceanography Program. The primary focus of these programs since the 1990s is on understanding the effects of sound on marine mammals, including physiological, behavioral, and ecological effects.
ONR's current Marine Mammals and Biology Program thrusts include, but are not limited to: (1) monitoring and detection research, (2) integrated ecosystem research including sensor and tag development, (3) effects of sound on marine life (such as hearing, behavioral response studies, physiology [diving and stress], and PCAD), and (4) models and databases for environmental compliance.
To manage some of the Navy's marine mammal research programmatic elements, OPNAV N45 developed in 2011 a new Living Marine Resources (LMR) Research and Development Program (
• Providing science-based information to support Navy environmental effects assessments for research, development, acquisition, testing and evaluation as well as Fleet at-sea training, exercises, maintenance and support activities.
• Improving knowledge of the status and trends of marine species of concern and the ecosystems of which they are a part.
• Developing the scientific basis for the criteria and thresholds to measure the effects of Navy generated sound.
• Improving understanding of underwater sound and sound field characterization unique to assessing the biological consequences resulting from underwater sound (as opposed to tactical applications of underwater sound or propagation loss modeling for military communications or tactical applications).
• Developing technologies and methods to monitor and, where possible, mitigate biologically significant consequences to living marine resources resulting from naval activities, emphasizing those consequences that are most likely to be biologically significant.
The integration between the Navy's new LMR Research and Development Program and related range complex monitoring will continue and improve during this LOA application period with applicable results presented in GOA TMAA annual monitoring reports.
The final regulations governing the take of marine mammals incidental to Navy training activities in the Study Area would contain an adaptive management component carried over from previous authorizations. Although better than 5 years ago, our understanding of the effects of Navy training and testing activities (
The reporting requirements associated with this proposed rule are designed to provide NMFS with monitoring data from the previous year to allow NMFS to consider whether any changes are appropriate. NMFS and the Navy would meet to discuss the monitoring reports, Navy R&D developments, and current science and whether mitigation or monitoring modifications are appropriate. The use of adaptive management allows NMFS to consider new information from different sources to determine (with input from the Navy regarding practicability) on an annual or biennial basis if mitigation or monitoring measures should be modified (including additions or deletions). Mitigation measures could be modified if new data suggests that such modifications would have a reasonable likelihood of reducing adverse effects to marine mammals and if the measures are practicable.
The following are some of the possible sources of applicable data to be considered through the adaptive management process: (1) Results from monitoring and exercises reports, as required by MMPA authorizations; (2) compiled results of Navy funded R&D
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking”. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring. Some of the reporting requirements are still in development and the final rulemaking may contain additional details not contained here. Additionally, proposed reporting requirements may be modified, removed, or added based on information or comments received during the public comment period. Reports from individual monitoring events, results of analyses, publications, and periodic progress reports for specific monitoring projects would be posted to the Navy's Marine Species Monitoring web portal:
Navy personnel would ensure that NMFS (the appropriate Regional Stranding Coordinator) is notified immediately (or as soon as clearance procedures allow) if an injured or dead marine mammal is found during or shortly after, and in the vicinity of, any Navy training exercise utilizing MFAS, HFAS, or underwater explosive detonations. The Navy would provide NMFS with species identification or a description of the animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead), location, time of first discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and photographs or video (if available). The Navy shall consult the Stranding Response Plan to obtain more specific reporting requirements for specific circumstances.
NMFS has developed the following language to address monitoring and reporting measures specific to vessel strike. Most of this language comes directly from the Stranding Response Plan for other Navy training and testing rulemakings. This section has also been included in the regulatory text at the end of this proposed rule. Vessel strike during Navy training activities in the Study Area is not anticipated; however, in the event that a Navy vessel strikes a whale, the Navy shall do the following:
Immediately report to NMFS (pursuant to the established Communication Protocol) the:
• Species identification (if known);
• Location (latitude/longitude) of the animal (or location of the strike if the animal has disappeared);
• Whether the animal is alive or dead (or unknown); and
• The time of the strike.
As soon as feasible, the Navy shall report to or provide to NMFS, the:
• Size, length, and description (critical if species is not known) of animal;
• An estimate of the injury status (
• Description of the behavior of the whale during event, immediately after the strike, and following the strike (until the report is made or the animal is no longer sighted);
• Vessel class/type and operational status;
• Vessel length;
• Vessel speed and heading; and
• To the best extent possible, obtain a photo or video of the struck animal, if the animal is still in view.
Within 2 weeks of the strike, provide NMFS:
• A detailed description of the specific actions of the vessel in the 30-minute timeframe immediately preceding the strike, during the event, and immediately after the strike (
• A narrative description of marine mammal sightings during the event and immediately after, and any information as to sightings prior to the strike, if available; and use established Navy shipboard procedures to make a camera available to attempt to capture photographs following a ship strike.
NMFS and the Navy will coordinate to determine the services the Navy may provide to assist NMFS with the investigation of the strike. The response and support activities to be provided by the Navy are dependent on resource availability, must be consistent with military security, and must be logistically feasible without compromising Navy personnel safety. Assistance requested and provided may vary based on distance of strike from shore, the nature of the vessel that hit the whale, available nearby Navy resources, operational and installation commitments, or other factors.
The Navy shall submit an annual report of the GOA TMAA monitoring describing the implementation and results from the previous calendar year. Data collection methods will be standardized across range complexes and study areas to allow for comparison in different geographic locations. Although additional information will be gathered, Navy Lookouts collecting marine mammal data pursuant to the GOA TMAA monitoring plan shall, at a minimum, provide the same marine mammal observation data required in § 218.155. The report shall be submitted either 90 days after the calendar year, or 90 days after the conclusion of the monitoring year to be determined by the Adaptive Management process. The GOA TMAA Monitoring Report may be provided to NMFS within a larger report that includes the required Monitoring Plan reports from multiple range complexes and study areas (the multi-Range Complex Annual Monitoring Report). Such a report would describe progress of knowledge made with respect to monitoring plan study questions across all Navy ranges associated with the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program. Similar study questions shall be treated together so that progress on each topic shall be summarized across all Navy ranges. The report need not include analyses and content that does not provide direct assessment of cumulative progress on the monitoring plan study questions.
Each year, the Navy shall submit a preliminary report detailing the status of authorized sound sources within 21 days after the anniversary of the date of issuance of the LOA. Each year, the Navy shall submit a detailed report within 3 months after the anniversary of the date of issuance of the LOA. The annual report shall contain information on Major Training Exercises (MTEs), Sinking Exercise (SINKEX) events, and a summary of all sound sources used (total hours or quantity [per the LOA] of each bin of sonar or other non-impulsive source; total annual number of each type of explosive exercises; and total annual expended/detonated rounds [missiles, bombs, sonobuoys, etc.] for each explosive bin). The analysis in the detailed report will be
The Navy shall submit to NMFS (specific contact information to be provided in LOA) an electronic report within fifteen calendar days after the completion of any major training exercise indicating: Location of the exercise; beginning and end dates of the exercise; and type of exercise.
This report will be included as part of the 2021 annual exercise report. This report will provide the annual totals for each sound source bin with a comparison to the annual allowance and the 5-year total for each sound source bin with a comparison to the 5-year allowance. Additionally, if there were any changes to the sound source allowance, this report will include a discussion of why the change was made and include the analysis to support how the change did or did not result in a change in the SEIS and final rule determinations. The report will be submitted 3 months after the expiration of the rule. NMFS will submit comments on the draft close-out report, if any, within 3 months of receipt. The report will be considered final after the Navy has addressed NMFS' comments, or 3 months after the submittal of the draft if NMFS does not provide comments.
In the Potential Effects section, NMFS' analysis identified the lethal responses, physical trauma, sensory impairment (PTS, TTS, and acoustic masking), physiological responses (particular stress responses), and behavioral responses that could potentially result from exposure to MFAS/HFAS or underwater explosive detonations. In this section, the potential effects to marine mammals from MFAS/HFAS and underwater detonation of explosives will be related to the MMPA regulatory definitions of Level A and Level B harassment and we will attempt to quantify the effects that might occur from the proposed training activities in the Study Area.
As mentioned previously, behavioral responses are context-dependent, complex, and influenced to varying degrees by a number of factors other than just received level. For example, an animal may respond differently to a sound emanating from a ship that is moving towards the animal than it would to an identical received level coming from a vessel that is moving away, or to a ship traveling at a different speed or at a different distance from the animal. At greater distances, the nature of vessel movements could also potentially not have any effect on the animal's response to the sound. In any case, a full description of the suite of factors that elicited a behavioral response would require a mention of the vicinity, speed and movement of the vessel, or other factors. So, while sound sources and the received levels are the primary focus of the analysis and those that are laid out quantitatively in the regulatory text, it is with the understanding that other factors related to the training sometimes contribute to the behavioral responses of marine mammals, although they cannot be quantified.
As mentioned previously, with respect to military readiness activities, section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “(i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment].” It is important to note that, as Level B harassment is interpreted here and quantified by the behavioral thresholds described below, the fact that a single behavioral pattern (of unspecified duration) is abandoned or significantly altered and classified as a Level B take does not mean, necessarily, that the fitness of the harassed individual is affected either at all or significantly, or that, for example, a preferred habitat area is abandoned. Further analysis of context and duration of likely exposures and effects is necessary to determine the impacts of the estimated effects on individuals and how those may translate to population level impacts, and is included in the Analysis and Negligible Impact Determination.
Of the potential effects that were described earlier in this proposed rule, the following are the types of effects that fall into the Level B harassment category:
As the statutory definition is currently applied, a wide range of behavioral reactions may qualify as Level B harassment under the MMPA, including but not limited to avoidance of the sound source, temporary changes in vocalizations or dive patters, temporary avoidance of an area, or temporary disruption of feeding, migrating, or reproductive behaviors. The estimates calculated by the Navy using the acoustic thresholds do not differentiate between the different types of potential behavioral reactions. Nor do the estimates provide information regarding the potential fitness or other biological consequences of the reactions on the affected individuals. We therefore consider the available scientific evidence to determine the likely nature of the modeled behavioral responses and the potential fitness consequences for affected individuals.
The sound characteristics that correlate with specific stress responses in marine mammals are poorly understood. Therefore, in practice, a stress response is assumed if a physiological reaction such as a hearing loss (threshold shift—
Only non-TTS behavioral reactions and TTS are anticipated with the GOA TMAA training activities, and these Level B behavioral harassment takes are enumerated in Tables 12 and 13 and in the Negligible Impact Determination later in this proposed rule.
Of the potential effects that were described earlier, following are the types of effects that can fall into the Level A harassment category (unless they further rise to the level of serious injury or mortality):
As discussed in the Negligible Impact Determination later in this proposed rule, only a small number (5) of Level A takes resulting from mild levels of PTS are predicted, and no serious injury or mortality takes are predicted, with the Navy's training activities in the GOA TMAA.
There is considerable disagreement among scientists as to the likelihood of this phenomenon (Piantadosi and Thalmann, 2004; Evans and Miller, 2003). Although it has been argued that traumas from recent beaked whale strandings are consistent with gas emboli and bubble-induced tissue separations (Jepson
For the purposes of an MMPA authorization, three types of take are identified: Level B harassment; Level A harassment; and mortality (or serious injury leading to mortality). The categories of marine mammal responses (physiological and behavioral) that fall into the two harassment categories were described in the previous section.
Because the physiological and behavioral responses of the majority of the marine mammals exposed to non-impulse and impulse sounds cannot be easily detected or measured, and because NMFS must authorize take prior to the impacts to marine mammals, a method is needed to estimate the number of individuals that will be taken, pursuant to the MMPA, based on the proposed action. To this end, NMFS developed acoustic thresholds that estimate at what received level (when exposed to non-impulse or impulse sounds) Level B harassment and Level A harassment of marine mammals would occur. The acoustic thresholds for non-impulse and impulse sounds are discussed below.
TTS is a physiological effect that has been studied and quantified in laboratory conditions. Because data exist to support an estimate of the received levels at which marine mammals will incur TTS, NMFS uses an acoustic criteria to estimate the number of marine mammals that might sustain TTS. TTS is a subset of Level B harassment (along with sub-TTS behavioral harassment) and the Navy is not specifically required to estimate those numbers; however, the more specifically the affected marine mammal responses can be estimated, the better the analysis.
PTS data do not currently exist for marine mammals and are unlikely to be obtained due to ethical concerns. However, PTS levels for these animals may be estimated using TTS data from marine mammals and relationships between TTS and PTS that have been determined through study of terrestrial mammals.
We note here that behaviorally mediated injuries (such as those that have been hypothesized as the cause of some beaked whale strandings) could potentially occur in response to received levels lower than those believed to directly result in tissue damage. As mentioned previously, data to support a quantitative estimate of these potential effects (for which the exact mechanism is not known and in which factors other than received level may play a significant role) do not exist. However, based on the number of years (more than 60) and number of hours of MFAS per year that the U.S. (and other countries) has operated compared to the reported (and verified) cases of associated marine mammal strandings, NMFS believes that the probability of these types of injuries is very low. Tables 9 and 10 provide a summary of non-impulsive and impulsive thresholds to TTS and PTS for marine mammals. A detailed explanation of how these thresholds were derived is provided in the Criteria and Thresholds Technical Report (Finneran and Jenkins, 2012) and summarized in Chapter 6 of the LOA application (
As the statutory definition is currently applied, a wide range of behavioral reactions may qualify as Level B harassment under the MMPA, including but not limited to avoidance of the sound source, temporary changes in vocalizations or dive patters, temporary avoidance of an area, or temporary disruption of feeding, migrating, or reproductive behaviors. The estimates
Unlike step functions, acoustic risk continuum functions (which are also called “exposure-response functions” or “dose-response functions” in other risk assessment contexts) allow for probability of a response that NMFS would classify as harassment to occur over a range of possible received levels (instead of one number) and assume that the probability of a response depends first on the “dose” (in this case, the received level of sound) and that the probability of a response increases as the “dose” increases. In January 2009, NMFS issued three final rules governing the incidental take of marine mammals (within Navy's Hawaii Range, Southern California Training and Testing Range, and Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training complexes) that used a risk continuum to estimate the percent of marine mammals exposed to various levels of MFAS that would respond in a manner NMFS considers harassment.
The Navy and NMFS have previously used acoustic risk functions to estimate the probable responses of marine mammals to acoustic exposures for other training and research programs. Examples of previous application include the Navy FEISs on the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) sonar (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2001c); the North Pacific Acoustic Laboratory experiments conducted off the Island of Kauai (Office of Naval Research, 2001), and the Supplemental EIS for SURTASS LFA sonar (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2007d). As discussed earlier, factors other than received level (such as distance from or bearing to the sound source, context of animal at time of exposure) can affect the way that marine mammals respond; however, data to support a quantitative analysis of those (and other factors) do not currently exist. It is also worth specifically noting that while context is very important in marine mammal response, given otherwise equivalent context, the severity of a marine mammal behavioral response is also expected to increase with received level (Houser and Moore, 2014). NMFS will continue to modify these criteria as new data become available and can be appropriately and effectively incorporated.
The particular acoustic risk functions developed by NMFS and the Navy (see Figures 1 and 2 of the LOA application) estimate the probability of behavioral responses to MFAS/HFAS (interpreted as the percentage of the exposed population) that NMFS would classify as harassment for the purposes of the MMPA given exposure to specific received levels of MFAS/HFAS. The mathematical function (below) underlying this curve is a cumulative probability distribution adapted from a solution in Feller (1968) and was also used in predicting risk for the Navy's SURTASS LFA MMPA authorization as well.
Detailed information on the above equation and its parameters is available in the LOA application and previous Navy documents listed above.
The harbor porpoise and beaked whales have unique criteria based on specific data that show these animals to be especially sensitive to sound. Harbor porpoise and beaked whale non-impulsive behavioral criteria are used unweighted—without weighting the received level before comparing it to the threshold (see Finneran and Jenkins, 2012).
It has been speculated for some time that beaked whales might have unusual sensitivities to sonar sound due to their likelihood of stranding in conjunction with mid-frequency sonar use, even in areas where other species were more abundant (D'Amico
Since the development of the criterion, analysis of the data the 2010 and 2011 field seasons of the southern California Behavioral Responses Study have been published. The study, DeRuiter
The information currently available regarding harbor porpoises suggests a very low threshold level of response for both captive and wild animals. Threshold levels at which both captive (Kastelein
Since impulse events can be quite short, it may be possible to accumulate multiple received impulses at sound pressure levels considerably above the energy-based criterion and still not be considered a behavioral take. The Navy treats all individual received impulses as if they were one second long for the purposes of calculating cumulative sound exposure level for multiple impulse events. For example, five air gun impulses, each 0.1 second long, received at a Type II weighted sound pressure level of 167 dB SPL would equal a 164 dB sound exposure level, and would not be predicted as leading to a significant behavioral response (take) in MF or HF cetaceans. However, if the five 0.1 second pulses are treated as a 5 second exposure, it would yield an adjusted SEL of approximately 169 dB, exceeding the behavioral threshold of 167 dB SEL. For impulses associated with explosions that have durations of a few microseconds, this assumption greatly overestimates effects based on sound exposure level metrics such as TTS and PTS and behavioral responses. Appropriate weighting values will be applied to the received impulse in one-third octave bands and the energy summed to produce a total weighted sound exposure level value. For impulsive behavioral criteria, the Navy's weighting functions (detailed in Chapter 6 of the LOA application) are applied to the received sound level before being compared to the threshold.
A quantitative impact analysis requires an estimate of the number of animals that might be affected by anthropogenic activities. A key element of this estimation is knowledge of the abundance and concentration of the species in specific areas where those activities will occur. The most appropriate unit of metric for this type of analysis is animal density, or the number of animals present per unit area. Marine species density estimation requires a significant amount of effort to both collect and analyze data to produce a reasonable estimate. Unlike surveys for terrestrial wildlife, many marine species spend much of their time submerged, and are not easily observed. In order to collect enough sighting data to make reasonable density estimates, multiple observations are required, often in areas that are not easily accessible (
For most cetacean species, abundance is estimated using line-transect surveys or mark-recapture studies (
Uncertainty in published density estimates is typically large because of the low number of sightings available for their derivation. Uncertainty is typically expressed by the coefficient of variation (CV) of the estimate, which is derived using standard statistical methods and describes the amount of variation with respect to the population mean. It is expressed as a fraction or sometimes a percentage and can range upward from zero, indicating no uncertainty, to high values. For example, a CV of 0.85 would indicate high uncertainty in the population estimate. When the CV exceeds 1.0, the estimate is very uncertain. The uncertainty associated with movements of animals into or out of an area (due to factors such as availability of prey or changing oceanographic conditions) is much larger than is indicated by the CV.
The methods used to estimate pinniped at-sea densities are typically different than those used for cetaceans. This is discussed in more detail in the Navy Marine Species Density Database Technical Report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014). Pinniped abundance is generally estimated via shore counts of animals at known rookeries and haulout sites. Translating these numbers to in-water densities is difficult given the variability in foraging ranges, migration, and haulout behavior between species and within each species, and is driven by factors such as age class, sex class, seasonal variation, etc. Details of the density derivation for each species of pinniped in the Study Area are provided in the U.S. Department of the Navy (2014). In summary, the methods used to derive pinniped densities involved a series of species-specific data reviews to compile the most accurate and up-to-date information available. The total abundance divided by the area of the region was the resultant density estimate for each species in a given location.
There is no single source of density data for every area, marine mammal species, and season because of the fiscal costs, resources, and effort involved to provide enough survey coverage to sufficiently estimate density. NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center conducts standard U.S. West Coast surveys every 5-6 years and cannot logistically support more frequent studies. The U.S. Navy has funded two previous marine mammal surveys in the GOA TMAA (Rone
In May 2015, the Marine Mammal Commission also reviewed the Marine Species Density Database Technical Report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014) and pointed out some textual errors that the Navy subsequently corrected, but otherwise did not identify any changes in the data used for acoustic effects modeling.
A certain number of sightings are required to generate the quality of data necessary to produce either traditional line-transect density estimates or spatial habitat modeled density values. The at-sea identification of some species of specific MMPA designated stocks is not always possible from available field data, nor would additional data collection likely address the identification issue based on low animal occurrence (
Therefore, to characterize marine mammal density for areas of concern, including the GOA TMAA Study Area, the Navy compiled data from multiple sources. Each data source may use different methods to estimate density and uncertainty (
The Navy thus developed a protocol to select the best available data sources based on species, area, and time (season). The Navy then used this protocol to identify the best density data from available sources, including habitat-based density models, line-transect analyses, and peer-reviewed published studies. These data were incorporated into a Geographic Information System database that includes seasonal (summer/fall and winter/spring) density values for every marine mammal species present within the Study Area. Detailed information on the Navy's selection protocol, datasets, and specific density values are provided in the Navy Marine Species Density Database Technical Report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014).
The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the number of marine mammals that could be affected by acoustic sources or explosives used during Navy training activities. Inputs to the quantitative analysis include marine mammal density estimates; marine mammal depth occurrence distributions; oceanographic and environmental data; marine mammal hearing data; and criteria and thresholds for levels of potential effects. The quantitative analysis consists of
Various computer models and mathematical equations can be used to predict how energy spreads from a sound source (
More complex computer models build upon basic modeling by factoring in additional variables in an effort to be more accurate by accounting for such things as variable bathymetry and an animal's likely presence at various depths.
The Navy has developed new software tools, up to date marine mammal density data, and other oceanographic data for the quantification of estimated acoustic impacts to marine mammal impacts from Navy activities. This new approach is the resulting evolution of the basic model previously used by the Navy and reflects a more complex modeling approach as described below. The new model, NAEMO, is the standard model now used by the navy to estimate the potential acoustic effects of Navy training and testing activities on marine mammals. Although this more complex computer modeling approach accounts for various environmental factors affecting acoustic propagation, the current software tools do not consider the likelihood that a marine mammal would attempt to avoid repeated exposures to a sound or avoid an area of intense activity where a training or testing event may be focused. Additionally, the software tools do not consider the implementation of mitigation (
The incorporation of mitigation factors for the reduction of predicted effects used a conservative approach (erring on the side of overestimating the number of effects) since reductions as a result of implemented mitigation were only applied to those events having a very high likelihood of detecting marine mammals.
The steps of the quantitative analysis of acoustic effects, the values and assumptions that went into the Navy's model, and the resulting ranges to effects are detailed in Chapter 6 (Section 6.5) of the LOA application (
The GOA DSEIS/OEIS considered all training activities proposed to occur in the Study Area that have the potential to result in the MMPA defined take of marine mammals. The stressors associated with these activities included the following:
• Acoustic (sonar and other active non-impulse sources, explosives, swimmer defense airguns, weapons firing, launch and impact noise, vessel noise, aircraft noise);
• Energy (electromagnetic devices);
• Physical disturbance or strikes (vessels, in-water devices, military expended materials, seafloor devices);
• Entanglement (fiber optic cables, guidance wires, parachutes);
• Ingestion (munitions, military expended materials other than munitions); and
• Secondary stressors (sediments and water quality).
The Navy determined, and NMFS agrees, that two stressors could potentially result in the incidental taking of marine mammals from training activities within the Study Area: (1) Non-impulsive stressors (sonar and other active acoustic sources) and (2) impulsive stressors (explosives). Non-impulsive and impulsive stressors have the potential to result in incidental takes of marine mammals by harassment, injury, or mortality.
A detailed analysis of effects due to marine mammal exposures to impulsive and non-impulsive sources in the Study Area is presented in Chapter 6 of the LOA application. Based on the model and post-model analysis described in Chapter 6 of the LOA application, Table 12 summarizes the Navy's final take request for training activities for a year (up to 2 exercises occurring over a 7-month period [April-October]) and the summation over a 5-year period (up to 2 exercises occurring over a 7-month period [April-October] for a total of 10 exercises).
Table 13 provides details on the Navy's final take request for training activities by species from the acoustic effects modeling estimates. Derivations of the numbers presented in Table 13 are described in more detail within Chapter 6 of the LOA application. Level A effects are only predicted to occur for Dall's porpoises. There are no mortalities predicted for any of the proposed training activities.
The Navy's proposed training activities could potentially affect marine mammal habitat through the introduction of sound into the water column, impacts to the prey species of marine mammals, bottom disturbance, or changes in water quality. Each of these components was considered in the
Unless the sound source or explosive detonation is stationary and/or continuous over a long duration in one area, the effects of the introduction of sound into the environment are generally considered to have a less severe impact on marine mammal habitat than the physical alteration of the habitat. Acoustic exposures are not expected to result in long-term physical alteration of the water column or bottom topography, as the occurrences are of limited duration and are intermittent in time. Surface vessels associated with the activities are present in limited duration and are intermittent as they move relatively rapidly through any given area. Most of the high-explosive military expended materials would detonate at or near the water surface. Only bottom-laid explosives are likely to affect bottom substrate; habitat used for underwater detonations and seafloor device placement would primarily be soft-bottom sediment. Once on the seafloor, military expended material would likely be colonized by benthic organisms because the materials would serve as anchor points in the shifting bottom substrates, similar to a reef. The surface area of bottom substrate affected would make up a very small percentage of the total training area available in the Study Area.
The GOA is one of the world's most productive ocean regions and the habitats associated with these cold and turbulent waters contain identifiable collections of macrohabitats that sustain a multitude of invertebrate species. Invertebrates in the GOA provide valuable links in the food chain and perform ecosystem functions such as nutrient processing. For humans, invertebrates contribute to economic, cultural, and recreational activities in the GOA.
All marine invertebrate taxonomic groups are represented in the Study Area. Major invertebrate phyla and the general zones they inhabit in the Study Area are described in Chapter 3 of the 2011 GOA FEIS/OEIS.
Very little is known about sound detection and use of sound by aquatic invertebrates (Budelmann 2010; Montgomery
Both behavioral and auditory brainstem response studies suggest that crustaceans may sense sounds up to three kilohertz (kHz), but best sensitivity is likely below 200 Hz (Lovell
Little information is available on the potential impacts on marine invertebrates of exposure to sonar, explosions, and other sound-producing activities. It is expected that most marine invertebrates would not sense mid- or high-frequency sounds, distant sounds, or aircraft noise transmitted through the air-water interface. Most marine invertebrates would not be close enough to intense sound sources, such as some sonars, to potentially experience impacts to sensory structures. Any marine invertebrate capable of sensing sound may alter its behavior if exposed to non-impulsive sound, although it is unknown if responses to non-impulsive sounds occur. Continuous noise, such as from vessels, may contribute to masking of relevant environmental sounds, such as reef noise. Because the distance over which most marine invertebrates are expected to detect any sounds is limited and vessels would be in transit, any sound exposures with the potential to cause masking or behavioral responses would be brief and long-term impacts are not expected. Although non-impulsive underwater sounds produced during training activities may briefly impact individuals, intermittent exposures to non-impulsive sounds are not expected to impact survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of widespread marine invertebrate populations.
Detonations associated with the Navy's GOA TMAA activities would occur well offshore (the middle of the GOA TMAA is 140 nm offshore; except for a point near Cape Cleare on Montague Island [12 nm away], the nearest shoreline [Kenai Peninsula] is 24 nm north of the GOA TMAA northern boundary). As water depth increases away from shore, benthic invertebrates would be less likely to be impacted by detonations at or near the surface. In addition, detonations near the surface would release a portion of their explosive energy into the air, reducing the explosive impacts in the water. Some marine invertebrates may be sensitive to the low-frequency component of impulsive sound, and they may exhibit startle reactions or temporary changes in swim speed in response to an impulsive exposure. Because exposures are brief, limited in number, and spread over a large area, no long-term impacts due to startle reactions or short-term behavioral changes are expected. Although individual marine invertebrates may be injured or killed during an explosion or pile driving, no long-term impacts on
The distribution and abundance of fishes depends greatly on the physical and biological factors of the marine ecosystem, such as salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, population dynamics, predator and prey interaction oscillations, seasonal movements, reproduction and life cycles, and recruitment success (Helfman
At least 383 species belonging to 84 families of marine and anadromous fishes have been reported from the predominant ecosystems found in the GOA TMAA. Detailed information on taxa presence, distribution, and characteristics are provided in Chapter 3 of the 2011 GOA FEIS/OEIS.
All fish have two sensory systems to detect sound in the water: The inner ear, which functions very much like the inner ear in other vertebrates, and the lateral line, which consists of a series of receptors along the fish's body (Popper, 2008). The inner ear generally detects relatively higher-frequency sounds, while the lateral line detects water motion at low frequencies (below a few hundred Hz) (Hastings and Popper, 2005a). Although hearing capability data only exist for fewer than 100 of the 32,000 fish species, current data suggest that most species of fish detect sounds from 50 to 1,000 Hz, with few fish hearing sounds above 4 kHz (Popper, 2008). It is believed that most fish have their best hearing sensitivity from 100 to 400 Hz (Popper, 2003b). Additionally, some clupeids (shad in the subfamily Alosinae) possess ultrasonic hearing (
Potential direct injuries from non-impulsive sound sources, such as sonar, are unlikely because of the relatively lower peak pressures and slower rise times than potentially injurious sources such as explosives. Non-impulsive sources also lack the strong shock waves associated with an explosion. Therefore, direct injury is not likely to occur from exposure to non-impulsive sources such as sonar, vessel noise, or subsonic aircraft noise. Only a few fish species are able to detect high-frequency sonar and could have behavioral reactions or experience auditory masking during these activities. These effects are expected to be transient and long-term consequences for the population are not expected. MFAS is unlikely to impact fish species because most species are unable to detect sounds in this frequency range and vessels operating MFAS would be transiting an area (not stationary). While a large number of fish species may be able to detect low-frequency sonar and other active acoustic sources, low-frequency active usage is rare and mostly conducted in deeper waters. Overall effects to fish from non-impulsive sound sources would be localized and infrequent.
Physical effects from pressure waves generated by underwater sounds (
Marine mammals may be temporarily displaced from areas where Navy training is occurring, but the area should be utilized again after the activities have ceased. Avoidance of an area can help the animal avoid further acoustic effects by avoiding or reducing further exposure. The intermittent or short duration of many activities should prevent animals from being exposed to stressors on a continuous basis (for the GOA TMAA, training activities will not occur continuously throughout the year, but rather, for a maximum of 21 days either once or twice annually). In areas of repeated and frequent acoustic disturbance, some animals may habituate or learn to tolerate the new baseline or fluctuations in noise level. While some animals may not return to an area, or may begin using an area differently due to training activities, most animals are expected to return to their usual locations and behavior.
Other sources that may affect marine mammal habitat were considered in the GOA DSEIS/OEIS and potentially include the introduction of fuel, debris, ordnance, and chemical residues into the water column. The majority of high-order explosions would occur at or above the surface of the ocean, and would have no impacts on sediments and minimal impacts on water quality. While disturbance or strike from an item falling through the water column is possible, it is unlikely because (1) objects sink slowly, (2) most projectiles are fired at targets (and hit those targets), and (3) animals are generally widely dispersed throughout the water column and over the Study Area. Chemical, physical, or biological changes in sediment or water quality would not be detectable. In the event of an ordnance failure, the energetic materials it contained would remain mostly intact. The explosive materials
Negligible impact is “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
The Navy's specified activities have been described based on best estimates of the maximum amount of sonar and other acoustic source use or detonations that the Navy would conduct. There may be some flexibility in that the exact number of hours, items, or detonations may vary from year to year, but take totals are not authorized to exceed the 5-year totals indicated in Tables 12-13. We base our analysis and NID on the maximum number of takes authorized, although, as stated before, the number of takes are only a part of the analysis, which includes extensive qualitative consideration of other contextual factors that influence the degree of impact of the takes on the effected individuals. To avoid repetition, we provide some general analysis immediately below that applies to all the species listed in Tables 13, given that some of the anticipated effects (or lack thereof) of the Navy's training activities on marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature. However, below that, we break our analysis into species, or groups of species where relevant similarities exist, to provide more specific information related to the anticipated effects on individuals or where there is information about the status or structure of any species that would lead to a differing assessment of the effects on the population.
The Navy's take request is based on its model and post-model analysis. In the discussions below, the “acoustic analysis” refers to the Navy's modeling results and post-model analysis. The model calculates sound energy propagation from sonar, other active acoustic sources, and explosives during naval activities; the sound or impulse received by animat dosimeters representing marine mammals distributed in the area around the modeled activity; and whether the sound or impulse received by a marine mammal exceeds the thresholds for effects. The model estimates are then further analyzed to consider animal avoidance and implementation of highly effective mitigation measures to prevent Level A harassment, resulting in final estimates of effects due to Navy training and testing. NMFS provided input to the Navy on this process and the Navy's qualitative analysis is described in detail in Chapter 6 of its LOA application (
Generally speaking, and especially with other factors being equal, the Navy and NMFS anticipate more severe effects from takes resulting from exposure to higher received levels (though this is in no way a strictly linear relationship throughout species, individuals, or circumstances) and less severe effects from takes resulting from exposure to lower received levels. The requested number of Level B takes does not equate to the number of individual animals the Navy expects to harass (which is lower), but rather to the instances of take (
As discussed previously in this proposed rule, marine mammals can respond to LF/MFAS/HFAS in many different ways, a subset of which qualifies as behavioral harassment. As described in the proposed rule, the Navy uses the behavioral response function to quantify the number of behavioral responses that would qualify as Level B behavioral harassment under the MMPA. As the statutory definition is currently applied, a wide range of behavioral reactions may qualify as Level B harassment under the MMPA, including but not limited to avoidance of the sound source, temporary changes in vocalizations or dive patterns, temporary avoidance of an area, or temporary disruption of feeding, migrating, or reproductive behaviors.
Some of the lower level physiological stress responses discussed earlier would also likely co-occur with the predicted harassments, although these responses are more difficult to detect and fewer data exist relating these responses to specific received levels of sound. Level B takes, then, may have a stress-related physiological component as well; however, we would not expect the Navy's generally short-term, intermittent, and (in the case of sonar) transitory activities to create conditions of long-term, continuous noise leading to long-term physiological stress responses in marine mammals.
The estimates calculated using the behavioral response function do not differentiate between the different types of potential reactions. Nor do the estimates provide information regarding the potential fitness or other biological consequences of the reactions on the affected individuals. We therefore consider the available scientific evidence to determine the likely nature of the modeled behavioral responses and the potential fitness consequences for affected individuals.
For LF/MFAS/HFAS use in the GOA TMAA, the Navy provided information (Table 14) estimating the percentage of behavioral harassment that would occur within the 6-dB bins (without considering mitigation or avoidance). As mentioned above, an animal's exposure to a higher received level is more likely to result in a behavioral response that is more likely to adversely affect the health of the animal. As illustrated below, the majority (including about 72 percent for the most powerful ASW hull-mounted sonar, which is responsible for a large portion of the sonar takes) of calculated takes from MFAS result from exposures less than 156 dB. Less than 1 percent of the takes are expected to result from exposures above 174 dB. Specifically, given a range of behavioral responses that may be classified as Level B harassment, to the degree that higher received levels are expected to result in more severe behavioral responses, only a small percentage of the anticipated Level B harassment from Navy activities might necessarily be expected to potentially result in more severe responses, especially when the distance from the source at which the levels below are received is considered (see Table 14). Marine mammals are able to discern the distance of a given sound source, and given other equal factors (including received level), they have been reported to respond more to sounds that are closer (DeRuiter
Although the Navy has been monitoring to discern the effects of LF/MFAS/HFAS on marine mammals since 2006, and research on the effects of MFAS is advancing, our understanding of exactly how marine mammals in the Study Area will respond to LF/MFAS/HFAS is still improving. The Navy has submitted more than 80 reports, including Major Exercise Reports, Annual Exercise Reports, and Monitoring Reports, documenting hundreds of thousands of marine mammals across Navy range complexes, and there are only two instances of overt behavioral disturbances that have been observed. One cannot conclude from these results that marine mammals were not harassed from MFAS/HFAS, as a portion of animals within the area of concern were not seen (especially those more cryptic, deep-diving species, such as beaked whales or
As noted previously, many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise exposure (when taking place in a biologically important context, such as disruption of critical life functions, displacement, or avoidance of important habitat) are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall
Durations for non-impulsive activities utilizing tactical sonar sources vary and are fully described in Appendix A of the GOA DSEIS/OEIS. ASW training exercises using MFAS/HFAS proposed for the GOA TMAA generally last for 2-16 hours, and may have intervals of non-activity in between. Because of the need to train in a large variety of situations (in the case of the GOA TMAA, complex bathymetric and oceanographic conditions include a continental shelf, submarine canyons, seamounts, and fresh water infusions from multiple sources), the Navy does not typically conduct successive ASW exercises in the same locations. Given the average length of ASW exercises (times of continuous sonar use) and typical vessel speed, combined with the fact that the majority of the cetaceans in the GOA TMAA Study Area would not likely remain in an area for successive days, it is unlikely that an animal would be exposed to MFAS/HFAS at levels likely to result in a substantive response that would then be carried on for more than one day or on successive days.
With the exception of SINKEXs, the planned explosive exercises for the GOA TMAA are of a short duration (1-6 hours). Although explosive exercises may sometimes be conducted in the same general areas repeatedly, because of their short duration and the fact that they are in the open ocean and animals can easily move away, it is similarly unlikely that animals would be exposed for long, continuous amounts of time. Although SINKEXs may last for up to 48 hrs, only two are planned annually for the GOA TMAA training activities, they are stationary and conducted in deep, open water (where fewer marine mammals would typically be expected to be randomly encountered), and they have a rigorous monitoring and shutdown procedures, all of which make it unlikely that individuals would be exposed to the exercise for extended periods or on consecutive days.
As mentioned previously, TTS can last from a few minutes to days, be of varying degree, and occur across various frequency bandwidths, all of which determine the severity of the impacts on the affected individual, which can range from minor to more severe. The TTS sustained by an animal is primarily classified by three characteristics:
1. Frequency—Available data (of mid-frequency hearing specialists exposed to mid- or high-frequency sounds; Southall
2. Degree of the shift (
3. Duration of TTS (recovery time)—In the TTS laboratory studies (see
Based on the range of degree and duration of TTS reportedly induced by exposures to non-pulse sounds of energy higher than that to which free-swimming marine mammals in the field are likely to be exposed during MFAS/HFAS training exercises in the GOA TMAA, it is unlikely that marine mammals would ever sustain a TTS from MFAS that alters their sensitivity by more than 20 dB for more than a few days (and any incident of TTS would likely be far less severe due to the short duration of the majority of the exercises and the speed of a typical vessel). Also, for the same reasons discussed in the Diel Cycle section, and because of the
Masking only occurs during the time of the signal (and potential secondary arrivals of indirect rays), versus TTS, which continues beyond the duration of the signal. Standard MFAS typically pings every 50 seconds for hull-mounted sources. For the sources for which we know the pulse length, most are significantly shorter than hull-mounted active sonar, on the order of several microseconds to tens of microseconds. For hull-mounted active sonar, though some of the vocalizations that marine mammals make are less than one second long, there is only a 1 in 50 chance that they would occur exactly when the ping was received, and when vocalizations are longer than one second, only parts of them are masked. Alternately, when the pulses are only several microseconds long, the majority of most animals' vocalizations would not be masked. Masking effects from MFAS/HFAS are expected to be minimal. If masking or communication impairment were to occur briefly, it would be in the frequency range of MFAS, which overlaps with some marine mammal vocalizations; however, it would likely not mask the entirety of any particular vocalization, communication series, or other critical auditory cue, because the signal length, frequency, and duty cycle of the MFAS/HFAS signal does not perfectly mimic the characteristics of any marine mammal's vocalizations. The other sources used in Navy training and testing, many of either higher frequencies (meaning that the sounds generated attenuate even closer to the source) or lower amounts of operation, are similarly not expected to result in masking.
NMFS believes that many marine mammals would deliberately avoid exposing themselves to the received levels of active sonar necessary to induce injury by moving away from or at least modifying their path to avoid a close approach. Additionally, in the unlikely event that an animal approaches the sonar vessel at a close distance, NMFS believes that the mitigation measures (
If a marine mammal is able to approach a surface vessel within the distance necessary to incur PTS, the likely speed of the vessel (nominal 10-15 knots) would make it very difficult for the animal to remain in range long enough to accumulate enough energy to result in more than a mild case of PTS. As mentioned previously and in relation to TTS, the likely consequences to the health of an individual that incurs PTS can range from mild to more serious dependent upon the degree of PTS and the frequency band it is in, and many animals are able to compensate for the shift, although it may include energetic costs. Only 5 Level A (PTS) takes per year are predicted from GOA training activities, and these are all Dall's porpoise—not large whale species or beaked whales. We also assume that the acoustic exposures sufficient to trigger onset PTS (or TTS) would be accompanied by physiological stress responses, although the sound characteristics that correlate with specific stress responses in marine mammals are poorly understood. As discussed above for Behavioral Harassment, we would not expect the Navy's generally short-term, intermittent, and (in the case of sonar) transitory activities to create conditions of long-term, continuous noise leading to long-term physiological stress responses in marine mammals. No other injurious takes or mortality are predicted. As discussed previously, marine mammals (especially beaked whales) could potentially respond to MFAS at a received level lower than the injury threshold in a manner that indirectly results in the animals stranding. The exact mechanism of this potential response, behavioral or physiological, is not known. When naval exercises have been associated with strandings in the past, it has typically been when three or more vessels are operating simultaneously, in the presence of a strong surface duct, and in areas of constricted channels, semi-enclosed areas, and/or steep bathymetry. While these features certainly do not define the only factors that can contribute to a stranding, and while they need not all be present in their aggregate to increase the likelihood of a stranding, it is worth noting that they are not all present in the GOA TMAA, which only has a strong surface duct present during the winter, and does not have bathymetry or constricted channels of the type that have been present in the sonar associated strandings. When this is combined with consideration of the number of hours of active sonar training that will be conducted and the total duration of all training exercises (a maximum of 21 days once or twice a year), we believe that the probability is small that this will occur. Lastly, an active sonar shutdown protocol for strandings involving live animals milling in the water minimizes the chances that these types of events turn into mortalities.
As stated previously, there have been no recorded Navy vessel strikes of any marine mammals during training in the GOA Study Area to date, nor were takes by injury or mortality resulting from vessel strike predicted in the Navy's analysis.
Predicted effects on marine mammals from exposures to sonar and other active acoustic sources and explosions during annual training activities are shown in Table 13. The vast majority of predicted exposures (greater than 99 percent) are expected to be Level B harassment (non-injurious TTS and behavioral reactions) from sonar and other active acoustic sources at relatively low received levels (Table 14). The acoustic analysis predicts the majority of marine mammal species in the Study Area would not be exposed to explosive (impulsive) sources associated with training activities. Only Dall's porpoise is predicted to have Level B (TTS) exposures resulting from explosives, and only a limited number (5) of Dall's porpoise are expected to have injurious take (PTS) resulting from sonar and other active acoustic sources and
The analysis below may in some cases (
Generally, these represent a limited number of takes relative to population estimates for most mysticete stocks in the Study Area (Table 6). When the numbers of behavioral takes are compared to the estimated stock abundance and if one assumes that each take happens to a separate animal, less than approximately 20 percent of each of these stocks (with the exception of the Northeast Pacific stock of fin whale and the Alaska stock of minke whale for which there currently are no reliable population estimates because only portions of the stocks' range have been surveyed [Muto and Angliss, 2015]) would be behaviorally harassed during the course of a year. Because the estimates given above represent the total number of exposures and not necessarily the number of individuals exposed, it is more likely that fewer individuals would be taken, but a subset would be taken more than one time per year. In the ocean, the use of sonar and other active acoustic sources is transient and is unlikely to repeatedly expose the same population of animals over a short period.
Level B harassment takes are anticipated to be in the form of TTS and behavioral reactions and no injurious takes of North Pacific right, humpback, blue, fin, minke, or sei whales from sonar and other active acoustic stressors or explosives are expected. The majority of acoustic effects to mysticetes from sonar and other active sound sources during training activities would be primarily from anti-submarine warfare events involving surface ships and hull mounted sonar. Research and observations show that if mysticetes are exposed to sonar or other active acoustic sources they may react in a number of ways depending on the characteristics of the sound source, their experience with the sound source, and whether they are migrating or on seasonal grounds (
Specific to U.S. Navy systems using low frequency sound, studies were undertaken in 1997-98 pursuant to the Navy's Low Frequency Sound Scientific Research Program. These studies found only short-term responses to low frequency sound by mysticetes (fin, blue, and humpback whales) including changes in vocal activity and avoidance of the source vessel (Clark, 2001; Miller
Specific to mid-frequency sound, studies by Melcón
High-frequency systems are notably outside of mysticetes' ideal hearing and vocalization range and it is unlikely that they would cause a significant behavioral reaction.
Most Level B harassments to mysticetes from sonar in the Study Area would result from received levels less than 156 dB SPL. Therefore, the majority of Level B takes are expected to be in the form of milder responses (
As explained above, recovery from a threshold shift (TTS) can take a few minutes to a few days, depending on the exposure duration, sound exposure level, and the magnitude of the initial shift, with larger threshold shifts and longer exposure durations requiring longer recovery times (Finneran
Overall, the number of predicted behavioral reactions is low and occasional behavioral reactions are unlikely to cause long-term consequences for individual animals or populations. This assessment of long-term consequences is based in part on findings from ocean areas where the Navy has been intensively training and testing with sonar and other active acoustic sources for decades. While there are many factors such as the end of large-scale commercial whaling complicating any analysis, there is no data suggesting any long-term consequences to mysticetes from exposure to sonar and other active acoustic sources. On the contrary, there are findings suggesting mysticete populations are increasing in the two primary locations (Southern California and Hawaii) where the Navy's most intensively used range complexes are located. These findings include: (1) Calambokidis
Consequently, the GOA TMAA activities are not expected to adversely impact rates of recruitment or survival of mysticete whales.
The majority of Level B takes are expected to be in the form of mild responses (low-level exposures) and of a generally short duration. Relative to the population size, this activity is anticipated to result only in a limited number of Level B harassment takes. Because the estimates given above represent the total number of exposures and not necessarily the number of individuals exposed, it is more likely that fewer individuals would be taken, but a subset would be taken more than one time per year. In the ocean, the use of sonar and other active acoustic sources is transient and is unlikely to repeatedly expose the same population of animals over a short period. Overall, the number of predicted behavioral reactions are unlikely to cause long-term consequences for individual animals or populations. The GOA activities are not expected to occur in an area/time of specific importance for reproductive, feeding, or other known critical behaviors for sperm whales, and there is no designated critical habitat in the Study Area. Consequently, the activities are not expected to adversely impact annual rates of recruitment or survival of sperm whales.
All of these takes are anticipated to be in the form of behavioral harassment (TTS and behavioral reaction) and no injurious takes of delphinids from sonar and other active acoustic stressors or explosives are requested or proposed for authorization. Further, the majority of takes are anticipated to be by behavioral harassment in the form of mild responses. Research and observations show that if delphinids are exposed to sonar or other active acoustic sources they may react in a number of ways depending on their experience with the sound source and what activity they are engaged in at the time of the acoustic exposure. Delphinids may not react at all until the sound source is approaching within a few hundred meters to within a few kilometers depending on the environmental conditions and species. Delphinids that are exposed to activities that involve the use of sonar and other active acoustic sources may alert, ignore the stimulus, change their behaviors or vocalizations, avoid the sound source by swimming away or diving, or be attracted to the sound source (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007; Southall
Delphinid species generally travel in large pods and should be visible from a distance in order to implement mitigation measures and reduce potential impacts. Many of the recorded delphinid vocalizations overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS frequency range (2-20 kHz); however, as noted above, NMFS does not anticipate TTS of a serious degree or extended duration to occur as a result of exposure to MFAS/HFAS. Recovery from a threshold shift (TTS) can take a few minutes to a few days, depending on the exposure duration, sound exposure level, and the magnitude of the initial shift, with larger threshold shifts and longer exposure durations requiring longer recovery times (Finneran
The predicted effects to delphinids are unlikely to cause long-term consequences for individual animals or populations. The GOA TMAA activities are not expected to occur in an area/time of specific importance for reproductive, feeding, or other known critical behaviors for delphinids. Stocks of delphinid species found in the Study Area are not depleted under the MMPA, nor are they listed under the ESA. Consequently, the activities are not expected to adversely impact rates of recruitment or survival of delphinid species.
Behavioral responses can range from a mild orienting response, or a shifting of attention, to flight and panic (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007; Southall
The number of Dall's and harbor porpoise behaviorally harassed by exposure to MFAS/HFAS in the Study Area is generally higher than the other species. This is due to the low Level B harassment threshold (we assume for the purpose of estimating take that all harbor porpoises exposed to 120 dB or higher MFAS/HFAS will be taken by Level B behavioral harassment), which essentially makes the ensonified area of effects significantly larger than for the other species. However, the fact that the threshold is a step function and not a curve (and assuming uniform density) means that the vast majority of the takes occur in the very lowest levels that exceed the threshold (it is estimated that approximately 80 percent of the takes are from exposures to 120 dB-126 dB), which means that anticipated behavioral effects are not expected to be severe (
Animals that experience hearing loss (TTS or PTS) may have reduced ability to detect relevant sounds such as predators, prey, or social vocalizations. Some porpoise vocalizations might overlap with the MFAS/HFAS TTS frequency range (2-20 kHz). Recovery from a threshold shift (TTS; partial hearing loss) can take a few minutes to a few days, depending on the exposure duration, sound exposure level, and the magnitude of the initial shift, with larger threshold shifts and longer exposure durations requiring longer recovery times (Finneran
Harbor porpoises have been observed to be especially sensitive to human activity (Tyack
ASW training exercises using MFAS/HFAS generally last for 2-16 hours, and may have intervals of non-activity in between. In addition, the Navy does not typically conduct ASW exercises in the same locations. Given the average length of ASW exercises (times of continuous sonar use) and typical vessel speed, combined with the fact that the majority of porpoises in the Study Area would not likely remain in an area for successive days, it is unlikely that an animal would be exposed to MFAS/HFAS at levels likely to result in a substantive response (
Considering the information above, the predicted effects to Dall's and harbor porpoise are unlikely to cause long-term consequences for individual animals or the population. The GOA activities are not expected to occur in an area/time of specific importance for reproductive, feeding, or other known critical behaviors for Dall's and harbor porpoise. Stocks of Dall's and harbor porpoise are not listed as depleted under the MMPA. Consequently, the activities are not expected to adversely impact annual rates of recruitment or survival of porpoises.
As is the case with harbor porpoises, beaked whales have been shown to be particularly sensitive to sound and therefore have been assigned a lower harassment threshold based on observations of wild animals by McCarthy
Behavioral responses can range from a mild orienting response, or a shifting of attention, to flight and panic (Richardson, 1995; Nowacek, 2007; Southall
It has been speculated for some time that beaked whales might have unusual sensitivities to sonar sound due to their likelihood of stranding in conjunction with MFAS use. Research and observations show that if beaked whales are exposed to sonar or other active acoustic sources they may startle, break off feeding dives, and avoid the area of the sound source to levels of 157 dB re 1 µPa, or below (McCarthy
Populations of beaked whales and other odontocetes on the Bahamas and other Navy fixed ranges that have been operating for decades, appear to be stable. Behavioral reactions (avoidance of the area of Navy activity) seem likely in most cases if beaked whales are exposed to anti-submarine sonar within a few tens of kilometers, especially for prolonged periods (a few hours or more) since this is one of the most sensitive marine mammal groups to anthropogenic sound of any species or group studied to date and research indicates beaked whales will leave an area where anthropogenic sound is present (Tyack
Based on the findings above, it is clear that the Navy's long-term ongoing use of sonar and other active acoustic sources has not precluded beaked whales from also continuing to inhabit those areas. In summary, based on the best available science, the Navy and NMFS believe that beaked whales that exhibit a significant TTS or behavioral reaction due to sonar and other active acoustic testing activities would generally not have long-term consequences for individuals or populations. Claridge (2013) speculated that sonar use in a Bahamas range could have “a possible population-level effect” on beaked whales based on lower abundance in comparison to control sites. In summary, Claridge suggested that lower reproductive rates observed at the Navy's Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center (AUTEC), when compared to a control site, were due to stressors associated with frequent and repeated use of Navy sonar. It is also important to note that there were some relevant shortcomings of this study. For example, all of the re-sighted whales during the 5-year study at both sites were female, which Claridge acknowledged can lead to a negative bias in the abundance estimation. There was also a reduced effort and shorter overall study period at the AUTEC site that failed to capture some of the emigration/immigration trends identified at the control site. Furthermore, Claridge assumed that the two sites were identical and therefore should have equal potential abundances; when in reality, there were notable physical differences. The author also acknowledged that “information currently available cannot provide a quantitative answer to whether frequent sonar use at [the Bahamas range] is causing stress to resident beaked whales,” and cautioned that the outcome of ongoing studies “is a critical component to understanding if there are population-level effects.” Moore and Barlow (2013) have noted a decline in beaked whale populations in a broad area of the Pacific Ocean area out to 300 nm from the coast and extending from the Canadian-U.S. border to the tip of Baja Mexico. There are scientific caveats and limitations to the data used for that analysis, as well as oceanographic and species assemblage changes on the U.S. Pacific coast not thoroughly addressed. Although Moore and Barlow (2013) have noted a decline in the overall beaked whale population along the Pacific coast, in the small fraction of that area where the Navy has been training and testing with sonar and other systems for decades (the Navy's SOCAL Range Complex), higher densities and long-term residency by individual Cuvier's beaked whales suggest that the decline noted elsewhere is not apparent where Navy sonar use is most intense. Navy sonar training and testing is not conducted along a large part of the U.S. west coast from which Moore and Barlow (2013) drew their survey data. In Southern California, based on a series of surveys from 2006 to 2008 and a high number encounter rate, Falcone
NMFS also considered New
No beaked whales are predicted in the acoustic analysis to be exposed to sound levels associated with PTS, other injury, or mortality. After decades of the Navy conducting similar activities in the GOA Study Area without incident, NMFS does not expect strandings, injury, or mortality of beaked whales to occur as a result of training activities. Stranding events coincident with Navy MFAS use in which exposure to sonar is believed to have been a contributing factor were detailed in the Stranding and Mortality section of this proposed rule. However, for some of these stranding events, a causal relationship between sonar exposure and the stranding could not be clearly established (Cox
The GOA training activities are not expected to occur in an area/time of specific importance for reproductive, feeding, or other known critical behaviors for beaked whales. None of the Pacific stocks for beaked whales species found in the Study Area are depleted under the MMPA. The degree of predicted Level B harassment is expected to be mild, and no beaked whales are predicted in the acoustic analysis to be exposed to sound levels associated with PTS, other injury, or mortality. Consequently, the activities are not expected to adversely impact annual rates of recruitment or survival of beaked whales.
Research has demonstrated that for pinnipeds, as for other mammals, recovery from a threshold shift (TTS) can take a few minutes to a few days, depending on the exposure duration, sound exposure level, and the magnitude of the initial shift, with larger threshold shifts and longer exposure durations requiring longer recovery times (Finneran
Research and observations show that pinnipeds in the water may be tolerant of anthropogenic noise and activity (a review of behavioral reactions by pinnipeds to impulsive and non-impulsive noise can be found in Richardson
Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of an overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in fitness to those individuals, and would not result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole. Evidence from areas where the Navy extensively trains and tests provides some indication of the possible consequences resulting from those proposed activities. In the confined waters of Washington State's Hood Canal where the Navy has been training and intensively testing for decades and harbor seals are present year-round, the population level has remained stable suggesting the area's carrying capacity likely has been reached (Jeffries
Generally speaking, most pinniped stocks in the Study Area are thought to be stable or increasing (Carretta
Western U.S. stocks of Steller sea lions are listed as endangered under the ESA; however, there is no designated critical habitat Steller sea lions in the Study Area. As a conservative measure, the GOA TMAA boundary zone was specifically drawn to exclude any nearby critical habitat and associated terrestrial, air, or aquatic zones. NMFS is currently engaged in an internal Section 7 consultation under the ESA and the outcome of that consultation will further inform our final determination.
The best assessment of long-term consequences from training activities will be to monitor the populations over time within a given Navy range complex. A U.S. workshop on Marine Mammals and Sound (Fitch
Since 2006 across all Navy range complexes (in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific), there have been more than 80 reports, including Major Exercise Reports, Annual Exercise Reports, and Monitoring Reports. For the Pacific since 2011, there have been 29 monitoring and exercise reports submitted to NMFS to further research goals aimed at understanding the Navy's impact on the environment as it carries out its mission to train and test.
In addition to this multi-year record of reports from across the Navy, there have also been ongoing Behavioral Response Study research efforts (in Southern California and the Bahamas) specifically focused on determining the potential effects from Navy mid-frequency sonar (Southall
In the Hawaii and Southern California Navy training and testing ranges from 2009 to 2012, Navy-funded marine mammal monitoring research completed over 5,000 hours of visual survey effort covering over 65,000 nautical miles, sighted over 256,000 individual marine mammals, took over 45,600 digital photos and 36 hours of digital video, attached 70 satellite tracking tags to individual marine mammals, and collected over 40,000 hours of passive acoustic recordings. In Hawaii alone between 2006 and 2012, there were 21 scientific marine mammal surveys conducted before, during, or after major exercises. This monitoring effort is consistent with other research from these areas in that there have been no direct evidence demonstration that routine Navy training and testing has negatively impacted marine mammal populations inhabiting these Navy ranges. Continued monitoring efforts over time will be necessary to completely evaluate the long-term consequences of exposure to noise sources. Other research findings related to the general topic of long-term impacts are discussed above in the Species-Specific Analysis.
Based on monitoring conducted before, during, and after Navy training and testing events since 2006, the NMFS' assessment is that it is unlikely there will be impacts having any long-term consequences to populations of marine mammals as a result of the proposed continuation of training and testing in the ocean areas historically used by the Navy including the Study Area. This assessment of likelihood is based on four indicators from areas in the Pacific where Navy training and testing has been ongoing for decades: (1) Evidence suggesting or documenting increases in the numbers of marine mammals present (Calambokidis and Barlow, 2004; Falcone
To summarize, while the evidence covers most marine mammal taxonomic suborders, it is limited to a few species and only suggestive of the general viability of those species in intensively used Navy training and testing areas (Barlow
Training activities proposed in the GOA TMAA Study Area would result in mainly Level B and some Level A takes, as summarized in Tables 12 and 13. Based on best available science, NMFS concludes that exposures to marine mammal species and stocks due to GOA TMAA activities would result in individuals experiencing primarily short-term (temporary and short in duration) and relatively infrequent effects of the type or severity not expected to be additive. In addition, only a generally small portion of the stocks and species is likely to be exposed.
Marine mammal takes from Navy activities are not expected to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts for the following reasons:
• Most acoustic exposures (greater than 99 percent) would be within the non-injurious TTS or behavioral effects zones (Level B harassment consisting of generally temporary modifications in behavior) and none of the estimated exposures would result in mortality.
• As mentioned earlier, an animal's exposure to a higher received level is more likely to result in a behavioral response that is more likely to adversely affect the health of the animal. For low frequency cetaceans (mysticetes) in the Study Area, most Level B exposures will occur at received levels less than 156 dB. The majority of estimated odontocete takes from MFAS/HFAS (at least for hull-mounted sonar, which is responsible for most of the sonar-related takes) also result from exposures to received levels less than 156 dB. Therefore, the majority of Level B takes are expected to be in the form of milder responses (
• Acoustic disturbances caused by Navy sonar and explosives are short-term, intermittent, and (in the case of sonar) transitory. Even when an animal's exposure to active sonar may be more than one time, the intermittent nature of the sonar signal, the signal's low duty cycle (MFAS has a typical ping of every 50 seconds), and the fact that both the vessel and animal are moving, provide a very small chance that exposure to active sonar for individual animals and stocks would be repeated over extended periods of time. Consequently, we would not expect the Navy's activities to create conditions of long-term, continuous underwater noise leading to habitat abandonment or long-term hormonal or physiological stress responses in marine mammals.
• Range complexes where intensive training and testing have been occurring for decades have populations of multiple species with strong site fidelity (including highly sensitive resident beaked whales at some locations) and increases in the number of some species. Populations of beaked whales and other odontocetes in the Bahamas, and in other Navy fixed ranges that have been operating for tens of years, appear to be stable.
• Navy monitoring of Navy-wide activities since 2006 has documented hundreds of thousands of marine mammals on the range complexes and there are only two instances of overt behavioral change that have been observed.
• Navy monitoring of Navy-wide activities since 2006 has documented no demonstrable instances of injury to marine mammals as a result of non-impulsive acoustic sources.
• In at least three decades of similar Navy activities, only one instance of injury to marine mammals (March 25, 2011; three long-beaked common dolphin off Southern California) has occurred as a known result of training or testing using an impulsive source (underwater explosion). Of note, the time-delay firing underwater explosive training activity implicated in the March 4 incident is not proposed for the training activities in the GOA Study Area.
• The protective measures described in the Proposed Mitigation section above are designed to reduce vessel strike potential and avoid sound exposures that may cause serious injury, and to result in the least practicable adverse effect on marine mammal species or stocks.
Based on this analysis of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, which includes consideration of the materials provided in the Navy's LOA application and GOA DSEIS/OEIS, and dependent upon the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the Navy's training and testing activities in the GOA Study Area will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks. NMFS proposes to issue regulations for these activities in order to prescribe the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, and to set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of that taking.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. None of the proposed training activities in the Study Area occur where traditional Arctic subsistence hunting exists. Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the total taking affecting species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
There are eight marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction that are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the Study Area: Blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, sei whale, sperm whale, gray whale (Western North Pacific stock), North Pacific right whale, and Steller sea lion (Western U.S. stock). The Navy will consult with NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, and NMFS will also consult internally on the issuance of a LOA under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for GOA TMAA activities. Consultation will be concluded prior to a determination on the issuance of the final rule and a LOA.
NMFS is a cooperating agency on the Navy's GOA DSEIS/OEIS, which was prepared and released to the public August 23, 2014. Upon completion, the GOA Final SEIS/OEIS will be made available for public review and posted on NMFS' Web site:
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA requires federal agencies to prepare an analysis of a rule's impact on small entities whenever the agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking. However, a federal agency may certify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605 (b), that the action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Navy is the sole entity that would be affected by this rulemaking, and the Navy is not a small governmental jurisdiction, small organization, or small business, as defined by the RFA. Any requirements imposed by an LOA issued pursuant to these regulations, and any monitoring or reporting requirements imposed by these regulations, would be applicable only to the Navy. NMFS does not expect the issuance of these regulations or the associated LOA to result in any impacts to small entities pursuant to the RFA. Because this action, if adopted, would directly affect the Navy and not a small entity, NMFS concludes the action would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental take, Indians, Labeling, Marine mammals, Navy, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seafood, Sonar, Transportation.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 218 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the U.S. Navy for the taking of marine mammals that occurs in the area outlined in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs incidental to the activities described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by the Navy is only authorized if it occurs within the GOA TMAA Study Area, which is bounded by a hexagon with the following six corners: 57°30′° N. lat., 141°30′° W. long.; 59°36′° N. lat., 148°10′° W. long.; 58°57′° N. lat., 150°04′° W. long.; 58°20′° N. lat., 151°00′° W. long.; 57°16′° N. lat., 151°00′° W. long.; and 55°30′° N. lat., 142°00′° W. long.
(c) The taking of marine mammals by the Navy is only authorized if it occurs incidental to the following activities:
(1) Sonar and other Active Sources Used During Training:
(i) Mid-frequency (MF) Source Classes:
(A) MF1—an average of 541 hours per year.
(B) MF3—an average of 48 hours per year.
(C) MF4—an average of 53 hours per year.
(D) MF5—an average of 25 items per year.
(E) MF6—an average of 21 items per year.
(F) MF11—an average of 78 hours per year.
(ii) High-frequency (HF) Source Classes:
(A) HF1—an average of 24 hours per year.
(B) HF6—an average of 80 items per year.
(iii) Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Source Classes:
(A) ASW2—an average of 80 hours per year.
(B) ASW3—an average of 546 hours per year.
(C) ASW4—an average 4 items per year.
(iv) Torpedoes (TORP):
(A) TORP2—an average of 5 items per year.
(B) [Reserved]
(2) Impulsive Source Detonations During Training:
(i) Explosive Classes:
(A) E5 (>5 to 10 pound [lb] net explosive weight (NEW))—an average of 112 detonations per year.
(B) E6 (>10 to 20 lb NEW)—an average of 2 detonations per year.
(C) E7 (>20 to 60 lb NEW)—an average of 4 detonations per year.
(D) E8 (>60 to 100 lb NEW)—an average of 6 detonations per year.
(E) E9 (>100 to 250 lb NEW)—an average of 142 detonations per year.
(F) E10 (>250 to 500 lb NEW)—an average of 32 detonations per year.
(G) E11 (>500 to 650 lb NEW)—an average of 2 detonations per year.
(H) E12 (>650 to 1,000 lb NEW)—an average of 4 detonations per year.
(ii) [Reserved]
Regulations in this subpart are effective May 4, 2016, through May 3, 2021.
(a) Under letter of authorization (LOA) issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 218.157 of this chapter, the holder of the LOA may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the area described in § 218.150, provided the activity is in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of these regulations and the LOA.
(b) The activities identified in § 218.150(c) must be conducted in a manner that minimizes, to the greatest extent practicable, any adverse impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.
(c) The incidental take of marine mammals under the activities identified in § 218.150(c) is limited to the following species, by the identified method of take and the indicated number of times:
(1) Level B Harassment for all Training Activities:
(i) Mysticetes:
(A) Blue whale (
(B) Fin whale (
(C) Humpback whale (
(D) Humpback whale (
(E) Minke whale (
(F) North Pacific right whale (
(G) Sei whale (
(ii) Odontocetes:
(A) Baird's beaked whale (
(B) Cuvier's beaked whale (
(C) Dall's porpoise (
(D) Harbor porpoise (
(E) Harbor porpoise (
(F) Killer whale (
(G) Killer whale (
(H) Killer whale (
(I) Killer whale (
(J) Pacific white-sided dolphin (
(K) Stejneger's beaked whale (
(L) Sperm whale (
(iii) Pinnipeds:
(A) California sea lion (
(B) Steller sea lion (
(C) Steller sea lion (
(D) Harbor seal (
(E) Harbor seal (
(F) Harbor seal (
(G) Northern elephant seal (
(H) Northern fur seal (
(2) Level A Harassment for all Training Activities:
(i) Odontocetes:
(A) Dall's porpoise (
(B) [Reserved]
(ii) [Reserved]
Notwithstanding takings contemplated in § 218.152 and authorized by an LOA issued under §§ 216.106 and 218.157 of this chapter, no person in connection with the activities described in § 218.150 may:
(a) Take any marine mammal not specified in § 218.152(c);
(b) Take any marine mammal specified in § 218.152(c) other than by incidental take as specified in § 218.152(c);
(c) Take a marine mammal specified in § 218.152(c) if such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or stocks of such marine mammal; or
(d) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and requirements of these regulations or an LOA issued under §§ 216.106 and 218.157 of this chapter.
(a) When conducting training activities, as identified in § 218.150, the mitigation measures contained in the LOA issued under §§ 216.106 and 218.157 of this chapter must be implemented. These mitigation measures include, but are not limited to:
(1)
(i) Lookouts positioned on surface ships shall be dedicated solely to diligent observation of the air and surface of the water. Their observation objectives shall include, but are not limited to, detecting the presence of biological resources and recreational or fishing boats, observing mitigation zones, and monitoring for vessel and personnel safety concerns.
(ii) Due to manning and space restrictions on aircraft, small boats, and some Navy ships, lookouts for these platforms may be supplemented by the aircraft crew or pilot, boat crew, range site personnel, or shore-side personnel. Lookouts positioned in minimally
(iii) All personnel standing watch on the bridge, Commanding Officers, Executive Officers, maritime patrol aircraft aircrews, anti-submarine warfare helicopter crews, civilian equivalents, and lookouts shall successfully complete the United States Navy Marine Species Awareness Training prior to standing watch or serving as a lookout.
(iv) Lookout measures for non-impulsive sound:
(A) With the exception of vessels less than 65 ft (20 m) in length, ships using hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar sources associated with anti-submarine warfare activities at sea shall have two Lookouts at the forward position of the vessel.
(B) While using hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar sources associated with anti-submarine warfare activities at sea, vessels less than 65 ft (20 m) in length shall have one lookout at the forward position of the vessel due to space and manning restrictions.
(C) During non-hull mounted mid-frequency active sonar training activities, Navy aircraft participating in exercises at sea shall conduct and maintain, when operationally feasible and safe, surveillance for marine species of concern as long as it does not violate safety constraints or interfere with the accomplishment of primary operational duties. Helicopters shall observe/survey the vicinity of an anti-submarine warfare training event for 10 minutes before the first deployment of active (dipping) sonar in the water.
(D) Ships or aircraft conducting non-hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar, such as helicopter dipping sonar systems, shall maintain one lookout.
(E) Ships conducting high-frequency active sonar shall maintain one lookout.
(v) Lookout measures for explosives and impulsive sound:
(A) Aircraft conducting explosive signal underwater sound buoy activities using >0.5-2.5 lb. NEW shall have one lookout.
(B) Surface vessels or aircraft conducting small-, medium-, or large-caliber gunnery exercises against a surface target shall have one lookout. From the intended firing position, trained lookouts shall survey the mitigation zone for marine mammals prior to commencement and during the exercise as long as practicable. Towing vessels, if applicable, shall also maintain one lookout. If a marine mammal is sighted in the vicinity of the exercise, the tow vessel shall immediately notify the firing vessel in order to secure gunnery firing until the area is clear.
(C) Aircraft conducting explosive bombing exercises shall have one lookout and any surface vessels involved shall have trained Lookouts. If surface vessels are involved, lookouts shall survey for floating kelp and marine mammals. Aircraft shall visually survey the target and buffer zone for marine mammals prior to and during the exercise. The survey of the impact area shall be made by flying at 1,500 ft. (460 m) or lower, if safe to do so, and at the slowest safe speed. Release of ordnance through cloud cover is prohibited: Aircraft must be able to actually see ordnance impact areas. Survey aircraft should employ most effective search tactics and capabilities.
(D) When aircraft are conducting missile exercises against a surface target, the Navy shall have one Lookout positioned in an aircraft. Aircraft shall visually survey the target area for marine mammals. Visual inspection of the target area shall be made by flying at 1,500 ft. (457 m) or lower, if safe to do so, and at slowest safe speed. Firing or range clearance aircraft must be able to actually see ordnance impact areas.
(E) Ships conducting explosive and non-explosive gunnery exercises shall have one Lookout on the ship. This may be the same lookout described in paragraph (B) above for surface vessels conducting small-, medium-, or large-caliber gunnery exercises when that activity is conducted from a ship against a surface target.
(F) During sinking exercises, two Lookouts shall be used. One lookout shall be positioned in an aircraft and one lookout shall be positioned on a vessel.
(vi) Lookout measures for physical strike and disturbance:
(A) While underway, surface ships shall have at least one lookout.
(B) [Reserved]
(vii) Lookout measures for non-explosive practice munitions:
(A) Gunnery exercises using non-explosive practice munitions (
(B) During non-explosive bombing exercises one lookout shall be positioned in an aircraft and trained lookouts shall be positioned in any surface vessels involved.
(C) When aircraft are conducting non-explosive missile exercises (including exercises using rockets) against a surface target, the Navy shall have one lookout positioned in an aircraft.
(2) Mitigation Zones—The following are protective measures concerning the implementation of mitigation zones.
(i) Mitigation zones shall be measured as the radius from a source and represent a distance to be monitored.
(ii) Visual detections of marine mammals or sea turtles within a mitigation zone shall be communicated immediately to a watch station for information dissemination and appropriate action.
(iii) Mitigation zones for non-impulsive sound:
(A) The Navy shall ensure that hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar transmission levels are limited to at least 6 dB below normal operating levels if any detected marine mammals or sea turtles are within 1,000 yd. (914 m) of the sonar dome (the bow).
(B) The Navy shall ensure that hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar transmissions are limited to at least 10 dB below the equipment's normal operating level if any detected marine mammals or sea turtles are within 500 yd. (457 m) of the sonar dome.
(C) The Navy shall ensure that hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar transmissions are ceased if any detected cetaceans or sea turtles are within 200 yd. (183 m) and pinnipeds are within 100 yd. (90 m) of the sonar dome. Transmissions shall not resume until the marine mammal has been observed exiting the mitigation zone, is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, has not been detected for 30 minutes, the vessel has transited more than 2,000 yd. beyond the location of the last detection, or the ship concludes that dolphins are deliberately closing in on the ship to ride the ship's bow wave (and there are no other marine mammal sightings within the mitigation zone). Active transmission may resume when dolphins are bow riding because they are out of the main transmission axis of the active sonar while in the shallow-wave area of the ship bow.
(D) The Navy shall ensure that high-frequency and non-hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar transmission levels are ceased if any detected cetaceans are within 200 yd. (180 m) and pinnipeds are within 100 yd. (90 m) of the source. Transmissions shall not resume until the marine mammal has been observed exiting the mitigation zone, is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, the mitigation zone has been
(iv) Mitigation zones for explosive and impulsive sound:
(A) A mitigation zone with a radius of 350 yd. (320 m) shall be established for explosive signal underwater sonobuoys using >0.5 to 2.5 lb NEW. Explosive signal underwater sonobuoys shall not be deployed if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone (around the intended deployment location). Explosive signal underwater sonobuoy deployment shall cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Detonations shall recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 10 minutes. Passive acoustic monitoring shall also be conducted with Navy assets, such as sonobuoys, already participating in the activity. These assets would only detect vocalizing marine mammals within the frequency bands monitored by Navy personnel. Passive acoustic detections would not provide range or bearing to detected animals, and therefore cannot provide locations of these animals. Passive acoustic detections would be reported to Lookouts posted in aircraft in order to increase vigilance of their visual surveillance.
(B) A mitigation zone with a radius of 200 yd. (180 m) shall be established for small- and medium-caliber gunnery exercises with a surface target. The exercise shall not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Firing shall cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Firing shall recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 10 minutes for a firing aircraft, the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes for a firing ship, or the intended target location has been repositioned more than 400 yd. (370 m) away from the location of the last sighting.
(C) A mitigation zone with a radius of 600 yd. (549 m) shall be established for large-caliber gunnery exercises with a surface target. The exercise shall not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Firing shall cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Firing shall recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes.
(D) A mitigation zone with a radius of 900 yd. (823 m) shall be established for missile exercises with up to 250 lb NEW and a surface target. The exercise shall not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Firing shall cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Firing shall recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 10 minutes or 30 minutes (depending on aircraft type).
(E) A mitigation zone with a radius of 2,000 yd. (1.8 km) shall be established for missile exercises with 251 to 500 lb NEW using a surface target. The exercise shall not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Firing shall cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Firing shall recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 10 minutes or 30 minutes (depending on aircraft type).
(F) A mitigation zone with a radius of 2,500 yd. (2.3 km) around the intended impact location for explosive bombs and 1000 yd. (920 m) for non-explosive bombs shall be established for bombing exercises. The exercise shall not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Bombing shall cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Bombing shall recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 10 minutes.
(G) A mitigation zone with a radius of 2.5 nautical miles shall be established for sinking exercises. Sinking exercises shall include aerial observation beginning 90 minutes before the first firing, visual observations from vessels throughout the duration of the exercise, and both aerial and vessel observation immediately after any planned or unplanned breaks in weapons firing of longer than 2 hours. Prior to conducting the exercise, the Navy shall review remotely sensed sea surface temperature and sea surface height maps to aid in deciding where to release the target ship hulk. The Navy shall also monitor using passive acoustics during the exercise. Passive acoustic monitoring would be conducted with Navy assets, such as passive ships sonar systems or sonobuoys, already participating in the activity. These assets would only detect vocalizing marine mammals within the frequency bands monitored by Navy personnel. Passive acoustic detections would not provide range or bearing to detected animals, and therefore cannot provide locations of these animals. Passive acoustic detections would be reported to lookouts posted in aircraft and on vessels in order to increase vigilance of their visual surveillance. Lookouts shall also increase observation vigilance before the use of torpedoes or unguided ordnance with a NEW of 500 lb. or greater, or if the Beaufort sea state is a 4 or above. The exercise shall not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. The exercise shall cease if a marine mammal, sea turtle, or aggregation of jellyfish is sighted within the mitigation zone. The exercise shall recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course and speed and the relative motion between the animal and the source, or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes. Upon sinking the vessel, the Navy shall conduct post-exercise visual surveillance of the mitigation zone for 2
(H) A mitigation zone of 70 yd. (46 m) shall be established for all explosive large-caliber gunnery exercises conducted from a ship. The exercise shall not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Firing shall cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Firing shall recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes, or the vessel has repositioned itself more than 140 yd. (128 m) away from the location of the last sighting.
(v) Mitigation zones for vessels and in-water devices:
(A) A mitigation zone of 500 yd. (460 m) for observed whales and 200 yd (183 m) for all other marine mammals (except bow riding dolphins) shall be established for all vessel movement during training activities, providing it is safe to do so.
(B) A mitigation zone of 250 yd. (229 m) shall be established for all towed in-water devices, providing it is safe to do so.
(vi) Mitigation zones for non-explosive practice munitions:
(A) A mitigation zone of 200 yd. (180 m) shall be established for small, medium, and large caliber gunnery exercises using a surface target. The exercise shall not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Firing shall cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Firing shall recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 10 minutes for a firing aircraft, the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes for a firing ship, or the intended target location has been repositioned more than 400 yd. (370 m) away from the location of the last sighting.
(B) A mitigation zone of 1,000 yd. (920 m) shall be established for bombing exercises. Bombing shall cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. The exercise shall not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Bombing shall recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 10 minutes.
(C) A mitigation zone of 900 yd. (823 m) shall be established for missile exercises (including rockets) using a surface target. The exercise shall not commence if concentrations of floating vegetation (kelp paddies) are observed in the mitigation zone. Firing shall cease if a marine mammal is sighted within the mitigation zone. Firing shall recommence if any one of the following conditions is met: The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone, the animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on its course and speed, or the mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 10 minutes or 30 minutes (depending on aircraft type).
(3)
(A)
(
(
(
(
(B) Within 72 hours of NMFS notifying the Navy of the presence of a USE, the Navy shall provide available information to NMFS (per the GOA TMAA Study Area Communication Protocol) regarding the location, number and types of acoustic/explosive sources, direction and speed of units using mid-frequency active sonar, and marine mammal sightings information associated with training activities occurring within 80 nautical miles (148 km) and 72 hours prior to the USE event. Information not initially available regarding the 80-nautical miles (148-km), 72-hour period prior to the event shall be provided as soon as it becomes available. The Navy shall provide NMFS investigative teams with additional relevant unclassified information as requested, if available.
(ii) [Reserved]
(b) [Reserved]
(a) The Holder of the Authorization must notify NMFS immediately (or as soon as operational security considerations allow) if the specified activity identified in § 218.150 is thought to have resulted in the mortality or injury of any marine mammals, or in any take of marine mammals not identified in § 218.152(c).
(b) The Holder of the LOA must conduct all monitoring and required reporting under the LOA, including abiding by the GOA TMAA monitoring plan.
(c)
(d)
(1) Immediately report to NMFS the species identification (if known), location (lat/long) of the animal (or the strike if the animal has disappeared), and whether the animal is alive or dead (or unknown), and the time of the strike.
(2) Report to NMFS as soon as operationally feasible the size and length of animal, an estimate of the injury status (ex., dead, injured but alive, injured and moving, unknown, etc.), vessel class/type and operational status.
(3) Report to NMFS the vessel length, speed, and heading as soon as feasible.
(4) Provide NMFS a photo or video, if equipment is available.
(5) Within 2 weeks of the strike, provide NMFS with a detailed description of the specific actions of the vessel in the 30-minute timeframe immediately preceding the strike, during the event, and immediately after the strike (
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1) MFAS/HFAS Major Training Exercises—This section shall contain the following information for Major Training Exercises conducted in the GOA TMAA:
(i) Exercise Information (for each MTE):
(A) Exercise designator.
(B) Date that exercise began and ended.
(C) Location.
(D) Number and types of active sources used in the exercise.
(E) Number and types of passive acoustic sources used in exercise.
(F) Number and types of vessels, aircraft, etc., participating in exercise.
(G) Total hours of observation by lookouts.
(H) Total hours of all active sonar source operation.
(I) Total hours of each active sonar source bin.
(J) Wave height (high, low, and average during exercise).
(ii) Individual marine mammal sighting information for each sighting in each exercise when mitigation occurred:
(A) Date/Time/Location of sighting.
(B) Species (if not possible, indication of whale/dolphin/pinniped).
(C) Number of individuals.
(D) Initial Detection Sensor.
(E) Indication of specific type of platform observation made from (including, for example, what type of surface vessel or testing platform).
(F) Length of time observers maintained visual contact with marine mammal.
(G) Sea state.
(H) Visibility.
(I) Sound source in use at the time of sighting.
(J) Indication of whether animal is <200 yd, 200 to 500 yd, 500 to 1,000 yd, 1,000 to 2,000 yd, or >2,000 yd from sonar source.
(K)
(L) If source in use is hull-mounted, true bearing of animal from ship, true direction of ship's travel, and estimation of animal's motion relative to ship (opening, closing, parallel).
(M)
(iii) An evaluation (based on data gathered during all of the MTEs) of the effectiveness of mitigation measures designed to minimize the received level
(2)
(i) Exercise information (gathered for each SINKEX):
(A) Location.
(B) Date and time exercise began and ended.
(C) Total hours of observation by lookouts before, during, and after exercise.
(D) Total number and types of explosive source bins detonated.
(E) Number and types of passive acoustic sources used in exercise.
(F) Total hours of passive acoustic search time.
(G) Number and types of vessels, aircraft, etc., participating in exercise.
(H) Wave height in feet (high, low, and average during exercise).
(I) Narrative description of sensors and platforms utilized for marine mammal detection and timeline illustrating how marine mammal detection was conducted.
(ii) Individual marine mammal observation (by Navy lookouts) information (gathered for each marine mammal sighting) for each sighting in each exercise that required mitigation to be implemented:
(A) Date/Time/Location of sighting.
(B) Species (if not possible, indicate whale, dolphin, or pinniped).
(C) Number of individuals.
(D) Initial detection sensor.
(E) Length of time observers maintained visual contact with marine mammal.
(F) Sea state.
(G) Visibility.
(H) Whether sighting was before, during, or after detonations/exercise, and how many minutes before or after.
(I) Distance of marine mammal from actual detonations (or target spot if not yet detonated).
(J)
(K)
(L) If observation occurs while explosives are detonating in the water, indicate munition type in use at time of marine mammal detection.
(3) Summary of sources used.
(i) This section shall include the following information summarized from the authorized sound sources used in all training events:
(A) Total annual hours or quantity (per the LOA) of each bin of sonar or other non-impulsive source;
(B) Total annual number of each type of explosive exercises (of those identified as part of the “Specified Activity” in this proposed rule) and total annual expended/detonated rounds (missiles, bombs, sonobuoys, etc.) for each explosive bin.
(4)
(g)
(i) Location of the exercise.
(ii) Beginning and end dates of the exercise.
(iii) Type of exercise.
(h)
To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to the regulations in this subpart, the U.S. citizen (as defined by § 216.106 of this chapter) conducting the activity identified in § 218.150(c) (the U.S. Navy) must apply for and obtain either an initial LOA in accordance with § 218.157 or a renewal under § 218.158.
(a) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, shall be valid for a period of time not to exceed the period of validity of this subpart.
(b) Each LOA shall set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species, its habitat, and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses (
(3) Requirements for mitigation, monitoring and reporting.
(c) Issuance and renewal of the LOA shall be based on a determination that the total number of marine mammals taken by the activity as a whole shall have no more than a negligible impact on the affected species or stock of marine mammal(s).
(a) A letter of authorization issued under §§ 216.106 and 218.157 of this chapter for the activity identified in § 218.150(c) shall be renewed or modified upon request of the applicant, provided that:
(1) The proposed specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as those described and analyzed for these regulations (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision of this chapter), and;
(2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required by the previous LOA under these regulations were implemented.
(b) For LOA modification or renewal requests by the applicant that include changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision of this chapter) that do not change the findings made for the regulations or result in no more than a minor change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution by species or years), NMFS may publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
(c) A LOA issued under § 216.106 and § 218.157 of this chapter for the activity identified in § 218.154 of this chapter may be modified by NMFS under the following circumstances:
(1)
(i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures in an LOA:
(A) Results from Navy's monitoring from the previous year(s);
(B) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or studies; or
(C) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent, or number not authorized by these regulations or subsequent LOA.
(ii) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS would publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
(2)
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 |