| Page Range | 719-868 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 81 FR 775 - Farm Credit Administration Board; Sunshine Act; Regular Meeting | |
| 81 FR 719 - Promoting Smart Gun Technology | |
| 81 FR 815 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 81 FR 769 - Application for New Awards; High School Equivalency Program | |
| 81 FR 763 - Application for New Awards; College Assistance Migrant Program | |
| 81 FR 790 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Travel Document, Form I-131; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection | |
| 81 FR 735 - Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review; 2014-2015 | |
| 81 FR 736 - Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews | |
| 81 FR 741 - Potassium Permanganate From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order | |
| 81 FR 742 - Welded ASTM A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
| 81 FR 774 - Notice of Availability of Draft Guidelines for Human Exposure Assessment | |
| 81 FR 804 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, and Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Olympia, WA | |
| 81 FR 810 - Notice of Inventory Completion: State Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismarck, ND | |
| 81 FR 805 - Notice of Inventory Completion: University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene, OR | |
| 81 FR 802 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN | |
| 81 FR 806 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, Washington, DC; Correction | |
| 81 FR 809 - Notice of Inventory Completion: History Colorado (Formerly Colorado Historical Society), Denver, CO | |
| 81 FR 808 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Shiloh Museum of Ozark History, Springdale, AR | |
| 81 FR 798 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC | |
| 81 FR 786 - Regulatory Requirements for Hearing Aid Devices and Personal Sound Amplification Products; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Reopening of the Comment Period | |
| 81 FR 784 - Streamlining Regulations for Good Manufacturing Practices for Hearing Aids; Public Workshop; Request for Comments | |
| 81 FR 867 - Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Reconfiguration of VA Black Hills Health Care System; Comment Period Extension | |
| 81 FR 804 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Department of Anthropology at Indiana University, Bloomington, IN | |
| 81 FR 809 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service, White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs, CO | |
| 81 FR 811 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, CT | |
| 81 FR 758 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review | |
| 81 FR 800 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, CT | |
| 81 FR 800 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Department of Anthropology at Indiana University, Bloomington, IN | |
| 81 FR 807 - Notice of Inventory Completion: University of Hawaii at Hilo, Hilo, HI | |
| 81 FR 783 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 802 - Notice of Inventory Completion for Native American Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects From Bernalillo, Cibola, and Socorro Counties, NM in the Control of the Cibola National Forest, United States Forest Service, Albuquerque, NM; Correction | |
| 81 FR 799 - Notice of Inventory Completion: The American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY | |
| 81 FR 815 - New Postal Product | |
| 81 FR 816 - New Postal Product | |
| 81 FR 848 - Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement on NJ Transitgrid Traction Power System in Hudson County, New Jersey | |
| 81 FR 851 - Community Development Financial Institutions Fund | |
| 81 FR 850 - Connex Railroad LLC-Lease and Operation Exemption-Line of Buzzi Unicem USA in College Park, Ga. | |
| 81 FR 733 - Establishing the Form and Manner With Which Security-Based Swap Data Repositories Must Make Security-Based Swap Data Available to the Commission; Correction | |
| 81 FR 847 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Electronic Application for Immigration Visa and Alien Registration | |
| 81 FR 761 - Public Meetings and Public Hearings Related to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Donlin Gold Mine Project, North of Crooked Creek, Alaska | |
| 81 FR 789 - Meeting: Homeland Security Advisory Council | |
| 81 FR 775 - Rangers Renal Holdings LP; Analysis To Aid Public Comment | |
| 81 FR 813 - Hearings of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure | |
| 81 FR 850 - Limitation on Claims Against a Proposed Public Transportation Project | |
| 81 FR 759 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
| 81 FR 780 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection: Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 791 - Endangered Species; Marine Mammals; Receipt of Applications for Permit | |
| 81 FR 744 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Operation, Maintenance, and Repair of the Northeast Gateway Liquefied Natural Gas Port and the Algonquin Pipeline Lateral Facilities in Massachusetts Bay | |
| 81 FR 814 - Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
| 81 FR 814 - Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
| 81 FR 778 - ArcLight Energy Partners Fund VI, L.P.; Analysis To Aid Public Comment | |
| 81 FR 744 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 81 FR 759 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License to Schafer Aerospace; Albuquerque, NM | |
| 81 FR 762 - Intent To Prepare an Integrated Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Reallocation of Flood Storage to Water Supply at Wright Patman Lake on the Sulphur River in Cass and Bowie, Counties in Northeast Texas | |
| 81 FR 757 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Invention Promoters/Promotion Firms Complaints | |
| 81 FR 734 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
| 81 FR 756 - Interagency Working Group on the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act | |
| 81 FR 793 - Notice of Realty Action: Competitive Sale of 39 Parcels of Public Land in Clark County, NV | |
| 81 FR 796 - Notice of Proposed Withdrawal Extension and Notice of Public Meeting; Montana | |
| 81 FR 867 - Privacy Act of 1974: Computer Matching Program | |
| 81 FR 763 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Private School Universe Survey (PSS) June 2016-May 2019 | |
| 81 FR 851 - Norfolk Southern Railway Company-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in the City of St. Louis, Mo. | |
| 81 FR 812 - A Centennial History of the United States International Trade Commission | |
| 81 FR 796 - Notice of Public Meeting, North Slope Science Initiative-Science Technical Advisory Panel | |
| 81 FR 774 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 81 FR 820 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, Amending Sections 312.03(b) and 312.04 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual To Exempt Early Stage Companies From Having To Obtain Shareholder Approval Before Issuing Shares for Cash to Related Parties, Affiliates of Related Parties or Entities in Which a Related Party Has a Substantial Interest | |
| 81 FR 844 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Derivatives and Other Off-Balance Sheet Items Schedule Pursuant to FINRA Rule 4524 (Supplemental FOCUS Information) | |
| 81 FR 834 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Series 9/10 Examination Program | |
| 81 FR 826 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Postponing the Date for Retirement of Computer to Computer Facility Corporate Action Announcement Files, and Implementing a Fee Associated With Its Use | |
| 81 FR 841 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2 Thereto, To Amend the By-Laws of Nasdaq, Inc. | |
| 81 FR 817 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Amend the By-Laws of Nasdaq, Inc. | |
| 81 FR 831 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Amend the By-Laws of Nasdaq, Inc. | |
| 81 FR 828 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Stock Clearing Corporation of Philadelphia; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Amend the By-Laws of Nasdaq, Inc. | |
| 81 FR 838 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Amend the By-Laws of Nasdaq, Inc. | |
| 81 FR 847 - Notice of Meeting of the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee and Preparations for Upcoming International Communications and Information Policy Meetings | |
| 81 FR 783 - Announcement of the Award of a Single-Source Program Expansion Supplement Grant to Heartland Human Care Services in Chicago, IL | |
| 81 FR 727 - Prohibition Against Certain Flights in Specified Areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) Flight Information Region (FIR) | |
| 81 FR 721 - Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Territory and Airspace of Somalia | |
| 81 FR 787 - Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Certain Intermodal Containers | |
| 81 FR 837 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 834 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 734 - Notice of the Specialty Crop Committee's Stakeholder Listening Session |
Economic Development Administration
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
This action amends and expands a prohibition against certain flights in the territory and airspace of Somalia that applies to all United States (U.S.) air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of a U.S. airman certificate, except when such persons are operating a U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when such operators are foreign air carriers. The prohibition is expanded by raising the minimum Flight Level (FL) for flight operations by such persons from FL200 to FL260. The FAA is taking this action because it has determined that there is an unacceptable risk to U.S. civil aviation operating in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 resulting from terrorist and militant activity. The security situation in Somalia remains unstable. In response to this activity, the FAA published a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) on May 12, 2015, prohibiting U.S. civil flight operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260. The prohibition contained in the May 12, 2015 NOTAM was continued in a subsequent NOTAM issued on November 25, 2015 that used a new accountability code for NOTAMs that announce FAA flight advisories or prohibitions for U.S. civil aviation operations in airspace for which the FAA is not the air navigation service provider. This amendment incorporates the flight prohibition set forth in the November 25, 2015 NOTAM into the rule; revises the approval process for proposed operations sponsored by other U.S. Government departments, agencies, and instrumentalities to align with the approval processes established for other recently published flight prohibition rules and clarifies the FAA's expectations regarding requests for approval; adds information about requests for exemption; reorganizes the placement of the rule within the General Operating and Flight Rules; and makes technical corrections to the regulatory text. This final rule will remain in effect for two years.
This final rule is effective on January 7, 2016.
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Michael Filippell, Air Transportation Division, AFS-220, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8166; email
The FAA has determined that there is an unacceptable risk to U.S. civil aviation operating in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 resulting from terrorist and militant activity, as described in the Background section of this rule. This action incorporates into Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 107, § 91.1613, the expanded flight prohibition for U.S. civil aviation detailed in the November 25, 2015, 2015 NOTAM (KICZ A0031/15). The revised prohibition applies to flight operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 by all U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of a U.S. airman certificate, except when such persons are operating a U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when such operators are foreign air carriers. Prior to this rulemaking action, SFAR No. 107 prohibited certain flight operations within the territory and airspace of Somalia below FL200 (former paragraph 2 of SFAR No. 107). However, it permitted flights departing from countries adjacent to Somalia whose climb performance would not permit them to operate above FL200 prior to entering Somali airspace, to operate at altitudes below FL200 while operating within Somalia to the extent necessary to permit them to climb above FL200, subject to the approval of, and in accordance with the conditions established by, the appropriate authorities of Somalia (former paragraph 2(b) of SFAR No. 107). This amendment no longer provides such exceptions for flights departing from adjacent countries and entering Somali airspace below FL260. This amendment also reformats the rule to meet current
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” In this instance, the FAA finds that notice and public comment to this immediately adopted final rule, as well as any delay in the effective date of this rule, are contrary to the public interest due to the immediate need to address the hazards to U.S. civil aviation that continue to exist in the territory and airspace of Somalia, as described in the Background section of this rule.
The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the U.S. and for the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, subpart III, section 44701, General requirements. Under that section, the FAA is charged broadly with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, because it prohibits the persons subject to paragraph (a) of Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 107, § 91.1613, (formerly paragraph 1 of SFAR No. 107) from conducting flight operations at altitudes below FL 260 in the territory and airspace of Somalia due to the hazards to the safety of such persons' flight operations, as described in the Background section of this rule.
The FAA issued SFAR No. 107, effective March 30, 2007 (72 FR 16710, April 5, 2007), because it had aviation safety and national security concerns regarding the safety of U.S. civil flight operations in Somalia, as well as overflights of Somalia below FL200. On March 9, 2007, the fuselage of an IL-76 aircraft supporting the deployment of Ugandan peacekeeping forces to Somalia exploded and caught fire just above the landing gear while on final approach to Mogadishu International Airport (HCMM). There was evidence to support the possibility that the aircraft might have been struck by a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) while 2.5-3 kilometers off the coast of Somalia at approximately 120 meters in altitude. The aircraft was able to land at Mogadishu, but was heavily damaged, although no serious injuries occurred to any crew or passengers. While there were conflicting accounts regarding the cause of the incident, the FAA believed at the time that the attack on the IL-76 was probably caused by an RPG. The FAA could not rule out the possibility that some individuals also had access to man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) that could be used against those persons covered by SFAR No. 107. In addition, on March 23, 2007, an IL-76 aircraft crashed after taking off from Mogadishu airport, killing all the passengers and crew. The aircraft brought engineers and parts to the IL-76 crippled in the March 9, 2007, incident. Although the cause of the crash was under investigation at the time SFAR No. 107 was issued, there was a possibility the IL-76 was downed by a MANPAD or RPG. These incidents occurred days after unknown individuals attacked the airport at Mogadishu with mortars, causing minimal damage. Consequently, the FAA determined that it was not safe for persons subject to SFAR No. 107 to overfly Somali territory below FL200 and that it was not in the United States' national security interests for such persons to engage in flight operations within the territory and airspace of Somalia below that altitude. Subsequent review of the IL-76 incidents later assessed that both attacks likely involved MANPADS.
The security situation in Somalia remains unstable. The FAA has continued to monitor hazards to U.S. civil aviation in the territory and airspace of Somalia and has determined that the risk from terrorist and militant activity now makes it unsafe for U.S. civil flights to operate in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260. On May 12, 2015, the FAA published NOTAM FDC 5/0120, which prohibited all U.S. civil flight operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260, due to an unacceptable risk to U.S. civil aviation operations at altitudes below FL260 from terrorist and militant activity. This NOTAM increased restrictions on U.S. civil aviation operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia beyond the restrictions contained in SFAR No. 107, which remained in effect.
On November 25, 2015, KICZ NOTAM A0031/15 replaced FDC NOTAM 5/0120 (A0018/15). The new NOTAM was published as the FAA transitioned from using Flight Data Center NOTAMs to the new KICZ accountability code for NOTAMS that announce FAA flight advisories or prohibitions for U.S. civil aviation operations in airspace for which the FAA is not the air navigation service provider. The details of the FAA's flight prohibition remained unchanged. This rule incorporates the expanded restrictions contained in the NOTAM into SFAR No. 107.
International civil air routes that transit Somali airspace and aircraft operating to and from Somali airports remain at risk from terrorist and militant groups potentially employing anti-aircraft weapons, including MANPADS, small-arms fire and indirect fire from mortars and rockets targeting airports. Some of these weapons have the capability to target aircraft upon approach and departure and at higher altitudes. The terrorist group al-Shabaab is active in Somalia and has demonstrated the capability and intent to target U.S. and Western interests. Al-Shabaab has conducted multiple attacks against civil aviation, including the previously mentioned attacks on two IL-76 aircraft in March 2007, likely using MANPADS. These attacks were part of the basis for the original SFAR. Al-Shabaab has also conducted ground assaults against Mogadishu International Airport (HCMM), the most recent of which occurred in December 2014. Attacks against aircraft in-flight or Somali airports can occur with little or no warning.
Given the uncertainty about when the above-described hazards to U.S. civil aviation will abate sufficiently to allow for safe U.S. civil aviation operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia below FL260, this amendment follows up on the November 25, 2015, NOTAM (KICZ A0031/15) by incorporating the flight prohibition contained in the NOTAM into the CFR. This amendment also places SFAR No. 107 in subpart M of part 91 in the new 14 CFR 91.1613.
The FAA will continue to actively evaluate the area to determine to what extent U.S. civil aviation may be able to safely operate therein. Adjustments to this SFAR may be appropriate if the risk to aviation safety and security changes. The FAA may amend or rescind this SFAR, as necessary, prior to its expiration date.
Additionally, the FAA is amending the approval process and approval conditions for SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613. The FAA believes that it has provided more streamlined approval processes for other U.S. government departments, agencies, and instrumentalities in more recent flight prohibition SFARs than the current SFAR No. 107 approval process would allow, and that an approval process similar to those adopted for recent SFARs may be instituted for SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613, while still addressing the risks to U.S. civil aviation in the territory and airspace of Somalia below FL260. The FAA is also
Because the circumstances described herein warrant immediate action by the FAA, I find that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Further, I find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this rule effective immediately upon issuance. I also find that this action is fully consistent with the obligations under 49 U.S.C. 40105 to ensure that I exercise my duties consistently with the obligations of the United States under international agreements.
If a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government determines that it has a critical need to engage any person covered under SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613, including a U.S. air carrier or a U.S. commercial operator, to conduct a charter to transport civilian or military passengers or cargo or other operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia below FL260, that department, agency, or instrumentality may request that the FAA approve persons covered under SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613, to conduct such operations. An approval request must be made directly by the requesting department, agency or instrumentality of the U.S. Government to the FAA's Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety (AVS-1) in a letter signed by an appropriate senior official of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality. Requests for approval submitted to the FAA by anyone other than the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality will not be accepted and will not be processed. In addition, the senior official signing the letter requesting FAA approval on behalf of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality must be sufficiently highly placed within his or her organization to demonstrate that the senior leadership of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality supports the request for approval and is committed to taking all necessary steps to minimize operational risks to the proposed flights. The senior official must also be in a position to: (1) Attest to the accuracy of all representations made to the FAA in the request for approval and (2) ensure that any support from the requesting U.S. government department, agency, or instrumentality described in the request for approval is in fact brought to bear and is maintained over time. Unless justified by exigent circumstances, requests for approval must be submitted to the FAA no less than 30 calendar days before the date on which the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality wishes the proposed operations, if approved by the FAA, to commence.
The letter must be sent by the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality to the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety (AVS-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. Electronic submissions are acceptable, and the requesting entity may request that the FAA notify it electronically as to whether the approval request is granted. If a requestor wishes to make an electronic submission to the FAA, the requestor should contact the Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, at (202) 267-8166 to obtain the appropriate email address. A single letter may request approval from the FAA for multiple persons covered under SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613, and/or for multiple flight operations. To the extent known, the letter must identify the person(s) covered under the SFAR on whose behalf the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality is seeking FAA approval, and it must describe—
• The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the mission being supported;
• The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the SFAR;
• To the extent known, the specific locations in the territory and airspace of Somalia below FL260 where the proposed operation(s) will be conducted, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 and the airports, airfields and/or landing zones at which the aircraft will take-off and land; and
• The method by which the department, agency, or instrumentality will provide, or how the operator will otherwise obtain, current threat information and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of the proposed operations (
The request for approval must also include a list of operators with whom the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality requesting FAA approval has a current contract(s), grant(s), or cooperative agreement(s) (or with whom its prime contractor has a subcontract(s)) for specific flight operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260. Additional operators may be identified to the FAA at any time after the FAA approval is issued. However, all additional operators must be identified to, and obtain an Operations Specification (OpSpec) or Letter of Authorization (LOA), as appropriate, from, the FAA for operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 before such operators commence such operations. The revised approval conditions discussed below will apply to any such additional operators. Updated lists should be sent to the email address to be obtained from the Air Transportation Division by calling (202) 267-8166.
If an approval request includes classified information, requestors may contact Aviation Safety Inspector Michael Filippell for instructions on submitting it to the FAA. His contact information is listed in the
FAA approval of an operation under SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613, does not relieve persons subject to this SFAR of their responsibility to comply with all applicable FAA rules and regulations. Operators of civil aircraft must also comply with the conditions of their certificate, OpSpecs, and LOAs, as applicable. Operators must further comply with all rules and regulations of other U.S. Government departments and agencies that may apply to the proposed operations, including, but not limited to, the Transportation Security Regulations issued by the Transportation Security Administration, Department of Homeland Security.
If the FAA approves the request, the FAA's Aviation Safety Organization (AVS) will send an approval letter to the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality informing it that the FAA's approval is subject to all of the following conditions:
(1) The approval will stipulate those procedures and conditions that limit, to the greatest degree possible, the risk to the operator, while still allowing the operator to achieve its operational objectives.
(2) Before any approval takes effect, the operator must submit to the FAA:
(a) A written release of the U.S. Government from all damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses; and
(b) the operator's agreement to indemnify the U.S. Government with respect to any and all third-party damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, relating to any event arising from or related to the approved operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia below FL260.
(3) Other conditions that the FAA may specify, including those that may be imposed in OpSpecs or LOAs, as applicable.
The release and agreement to indemnify do not preclude an operator from raising a claim under an applicable non-premium war risk insurance policy issued by the FAA under chapter 443 of title 49, United States Code.
If the proposed operation or operations are approved, the FAA will issue an OpSpec or an LOA, as applicable, to the operator authorizing the operation or operations, and will notify the department, agency, or instrumentality that requested the FAA's approval of any additional conditions beyond those contained in the approval letter. The requesting department, agency, or instrumentality must have a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement (or its prime contractor must have a subcontract) with the person(s) described in paragraph (a) of this SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613 (formerly paragraph 1 of SFAR No. 107), on whose behalf the department, agency, or instrumentality requests FAA approval.
Any operations not conducted under an approval issued by the FAA through the approval process set forth previously must be conducted under an exemption from SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613. A request by any person covered under SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613, for an exemption must comply with 14 CFR part 11, and will require exceptional circumstances beyond those contemplated by the approval process set forth above. In addition to the information required by 14 CFR 11.81, at a minimum, the requestor must describe in its submission to the FAA—
• The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the operation;
• The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the SFAR;
• The specific locations in the territory and airspace of Somalia below FL260 where the proposed operation(s) will be conducted, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the territory and airspace of Somalia below FL260 and the airports, airfields and/or landing zones at which the aircraft will take-off and land; and
• The method by which the operator will obtain current threat information, and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of its proposed operations (
Additionally, the release and agreement to indemnify, as referred to above, will be required as a condition of any exemption that may be issued under SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613.
The FAA recognizes that operations that may be affected by SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613, including this amendment, may be planned for the governments of other countries with the support of the U.S. Government. While these operations will not be permitted through the approval process, the FAA will process exemption requests for such operations on an expedited basis and prior to any private exemption requests.
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final rule has benefits that justify its costs and is a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, because it raises novel policy issues contemplated under that Executive Order. The rule is also “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States, and will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold identified above.
Department of Transportation Order 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning for this determination follows.
Due to the significant hazards to U.S. civil aviation described in the Background section of this rule, this rule incorporates into SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613, the prohibition of U.S. civil flights in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 issued by the FAA in NOTAM FDC 5/0120 on May 12, 2015, and continued in KICZ NOTAM A0031/15, which was issued on November 25, 2015. Before the FAA issued the May 12, 2015, NOTAM, the FAA prohibited U.S. civil flights in the territory and airspace of Somalia below FL200, rather than below FL260. However, flights departing from countries adjacent to Somalia whose
The fuel and time costs associated with increasing altitude from FL200 to FL260 before overflying Somalia are minimal per flight. Also minimal per flight are the fuel and time costs for persons subject to SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613, departing from countries adjacent to Somalia (Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Yemen), who are now required to be at altitudes at or above FL260 when entering Somali airspace. In addition, given the current hazards to U.S. civil aviation outlined in the Background section of this rule, the FAA believes there are very few U.S. operators who wish to overfly Somalia at altitudes below FL260. Consequently, the FAA estimates the costs of this rule to be minimal. These minimal costs are exceeded by the significant benefits of avoided deaths or property damage that would result from a U.S. operator's aircraft being shot down (or otherwise damaged) due to the hazards (described in the Background section of this final rule) to U.S. civil aviation in the territory and airspace of Somalia below FL260.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
While there are a substantial number of United States operators who are small entities, the number of affected flights is expected to be few, and the required change in flight path and altitude would result in minimal additional time and operating expense. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended, prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to this Act, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
The FAA has assessed the effect of this final rule and determined that its purpose is to protect the safety of U.S. civil aviation from a hazard outside the U.S. Therefore, the rule is in compliance with the Trade Agreements Act.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100 million.
This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this immediately adopted final rule.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to this regulation.
FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6f of this order and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has reviewed the implementation of this SFAR and determined it is categorically excluded from further environmental review according to FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.6f. The FAA has examined possible extraordinary circumstances and determined that no such circumstances exist. After careful and thorough consideration of the action, the FAA finds that this Federal action does not require preparation of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the requirements of NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and FAA Order 1050.1F.
The FAA has analyzed this immediately adopted final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States,
The FAA analyzed this immediately adopted final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—
• Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
• Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at
• Accessing the Government Publishing Office's Web page at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by amendment or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Please identify the docket or amendment number of this rulemaking in your request.
Except for classified material, all documents the FAA considered in developing this rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced above.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the
Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, Freight, Somalia.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).
(a)
(1) All U.S. air carriers and U.S. commercial operators;
(2) All persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and
(3) All operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except where the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
On May 22, 2015, the FAA issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) prohibiting certain flight operations in specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) Flight Information Region (FIR) by all U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of a U.S. airman certificate, except when such persons are operating a U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when such operators are foreign air carriers. The FAA found this action necessary to address the hazardous situation created by the risks to U.S. civil aviation from ongoing military operations, political instability, violence from competing armed groups, and the continuing terrorism threat from extremist elements associated with the fighting and instability in Yemen. The prohibition contained in the May 22, 2015 NOTAM was continued in a subsequent NOTAM issued on November 25, 2015 that used a new accountability code for NOTAMs that announce FAA flight advisories or prohibitions for U.S. civil aviation operations in airspace for which the FAA is not the air navigation service provider. This action incorporates the flight prohibition contained in the November 25, 2015, NOTAM into the Code of Federal Regulations.
This final rule is effective on January 7, 2016.
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Michael Filippell, Air Transportation Division, AFS-220, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202-267-8166; email
This action prohibits flight operations in the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR, excluding that airspace east and southeast of a line drawn direct from KAPET (163322N 0530614E) to NODMA (152603N 0533359E), then direct from NODMA to PAKER (115500N 0463500E), by all U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of a U.S. airman certificate, except when such persons are operating a U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when such operators are foreign air carriers. The FAA finds this action necessary to prevent a hazard to persons and aircraft engaged in such flight operations.
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” In this instance, the FAA finds that notice and public comment to this immediately adopted final rule, as well as any delay in the effective date of this rule, are contrary to the public interest due to the immediate need to address the hazard to U.S. civil aviation that now exists in specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR, as described in the Background section of this rule.
The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the U.S. and the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the world. The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in title 49, U.S. Code. Subtitle I, section 106(f), describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII of title 49, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. Section 40101(d)(1) provides that the Administrator shall consider in the public interest, among other matters, assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety an security as the highest priorities in air commerce. Section 40105(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to exercise his authority consistently with the obligations of the U.S. Government under international agreements.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, subpart III, section 44701, General requirements. Under that section, the FAA is charged broadly with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commere by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce an national security. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, because it prohibits the persons subject to paragraph (a) of Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 115, § 91.1611, from conducting flight operations in the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR due to the hazard to the safety of such persons' flight operations, as described in the Background section of this rule.
On March 26, 2015 (FDC 5/8051), the FAA issued a NOTAM prohibiting flight operations in the entire Sanaa (OYSC) FIR by all U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of a U.S. airman certificate, except when such persons were operating a U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when such operators were foreign air carriers. The FAA took this action because it had determined that there was an unacceptable risk to U.S. civil aviation operating in the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR due to the hazardous situation faced by U.S. civil aviation from ongoing military operations, political instability, violence from competing armed groups, and the continuing terrorism threat from extremist elements associated with the fighting and instability in Yemen.
After issuing the March 26, 2015, NOTAM, the FAA continued to monitor the risks to U.S. civil aviation in the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR. On May 22, 2015, after evaluating available information regarding the safety of certain air traffic routes over the high seas in the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR, including B400, B403 and B404, given current military operations and other threats to U.S. civil aviation in the region, the FAA determined that U.S. civil aviation operations could operate safely in part of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR. The FAA issued a new NOTAM (FDC 5/5575), which allowed U.S. civil aviation operations to resume in specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR. Specifically, the May 22, 2015, NOTAM permitted U.S. civil aviation operations to resume in the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR in that airspace east and southeast of a line drawn direct from
On November 25, 2015, KICZ NOTAM A0036/15 replaced FDC NOTAM 5/5575 (A0019/15). The new NOTAM was published as the FAA transitioned from using Flight Data Center NOTAMs to the new KICZ accountability code for NOTAMS that announce FAA flight advisories or prohibitions for U.S. civil aviation operations in airspace for which the FAA is not the air navigation service provider. The details of the FAA's flight prohibition remained unchanged. This final rule incorporates the prohibition contained in the November 25, 2015, NOTAM into the Code of Federal Regulations.
The FAA has determined that there is an unacceptable risk to U.S. civil aviation operating in the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR, excluding that airspace east and southeast of a line drawn direct from KAPET (163322N 0530614E) to NODMA (152603N 0533359E), then direct from NODMA to PAKER (115500N 0463500E), due to the hazardous situation faced by U.S. civil aviation from ongoing military operations, political instability, violence from competing armed groups, and the continuing terrorism threat from extremist elements associated with the fighting and instability in Yemen.
International civil air routes that transit the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR and aircraft operating to and from Yemeni airports are at risk from terrorist and militant groups potentially employing anti-aircraft weapons, including Man-Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS), surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), small-arms fire, and indirect fire from mortars and rockets. Due to the fighting and instability, there is a risk of possible loss of state control over more advanced anti-aircraft weapons to terrorist and militant groups, and some of these weapons have the capability to target aircraft at higher altitudes and/or during approach and departure and have weapon ranges that could extend into the near off-shore areas along Yemen's coastline. U.S. civil aviation is also at risk from combat operations and other military-related activity associated with the fighting and instability. There is also an ongoing threat of terrorism. Al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is active in Yemen and has demonstrated the capability and intent to target U.S. and Western aviation interests.
Attacks against aircraft in flight or Yemeni airports can occur with little or no warning. Various Yemeni airports have been attacked during the fighting, including Sanaa International Airport (OYSN) and Aden International Airport (OYAA), resulting in damage to airport facilities and temporary closure of the airports. In recent years, Sanaa International Airport (OYSN) has been shut down on numerous occasions due to indirect fire and threats of attack against the airport and aircraft at low altitudes during approach and/or departure.
There is also a risk to U.S. civil aviation from potential strategic SAM systems. Some of these air defense SAMs pose a threat to civil aviation out to 40 nautical miles and can reach altitudes above the normal cruising levels for civil air traffic. On March 28, 2015, a probable SAM missile was launched from the vicinity of Al Hudaydah, Yemen along the Red Sea.
Given the uncertainty about when the above-described hazards to U.S. civil aviation will abate sufficiently to allow for safe U.S. civil aviation operations in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR, this new SFAR follows up on the November 25, 2015, NOTAM and incorporates the flight prohibition contained in the November 25, 2015, NOTAM into the Code of Federal Regulations.
The FAA will continue to actively evaluate the area to determine to what extent U.S. civil aviation may be able to safely operate therein. Adjustments to this SFAR may be appropriate if the risk to aviation safety and security changes. The FAA may amend or rescind this SFAR as necessary prior to its expiration date.
Because the circumstances described herein warrant immediate action by the FAA, I find that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Further, I find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this rule effective immediately upon issuance. I also find that this action is fully consistent with the obligation under 49 U.S.C. 40105 to ensure that I exercise my duties consistently with the obligations of the United States under international agreements.
If a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government determines that it has a critical need to engage any person covered under SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, including a U.S. air carrier or a U.S. commercial operator, to conduct a charter to transport civilian or military passengers or cargo or other operations in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR, that department, agency, or instrumentality may request that the FAA approve persons covered under SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, to conduct such operations. An approval request must be made directly by the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government to the FAA's Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety (AVS-1) in a letter signed by an appropriate senior official of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality. Requests for approval submitted to the FAA by anyone other than the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality will not be accepted and will not be processed. In addition, the senior official signing the letter requesting FAA approval on behalf of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality must be sufficiently highly placed within his or her organization to demonstrate that the senior leadership of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality supports the request for approval and is committed to taking all necessary steps to minimize operational risks to the proposed flights. The senior official must also be in a position to: (1) Attest to the accuracy of all representations made to the FAA in the request for approval and (2) ensure that any support from the requesting U.S. government department, agency, or instrumentality described in the request for approval is in fact brought to bear and is maintained over time. Unless justified by exigent circumstances, requests for approval must be submitted to the FAA no less than 30 calendar days before the date on which the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality wishes the proposed operations, if approved by the FAA, to commence.
The letter must be sent by the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality to the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety (AVS-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. Electronic submissions are acceptable, and the requesting entity may request that the FAA notify it electronically as
• The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the mission being supported;
• The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the SFAR;
• To the extent known, the specific locations in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR where the proposed operation(s) will be conducted, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while operating in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR and the airports, airfields and/or landing zones at which the aircraft will take-off and land; and
• The method by which the department, agency, or instrumentality will provide, or how the operator will otherwise obtain, current threat information and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of the proposed operations (
The request for approval must also include a list of operators with whom the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality requesting FAA approval has a current contract(s), grant(s), or cooperative agreement(s) (or with whom its prime contractor has a subcontract(s)) for specific flight operations in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR. Additional operators may be identified to the FAA at any time after the FAA approval is issued. However, all additional operators must be identified to the FAA, and must obtain the necessary operations specification (OpsSpec) or letter of authorization (LOA), as applicable, from the FAA, before such operators commence operations in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR. Updated lists should be sent to the email address to be obtained from the Air Transportation Division by calling (202) 267-8166.
If an approval request includes classified information, requestors may contact Aviation Safety Inspector Michael Filippell for instructions on submitting it to the FAA. His contact information is listed in the
FAA approval of an operation under SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, does not relieve persons subject to this SFAR of their responsibility to comply with all applicable FAA rules and regulations. Operators of civil aircraft must also comply with the conditions of their certificate, OpsSpecs, and LOAs, as applicable. Operators must further comply with all rules and regulations of other U.S. Government departments and agencies that may apply to the proposed operation, including, but not limited to, the Transportation Security Regulations issued by the Transportation Security Administration, Department of Homeland Security.
If the FAA approves the request, the FAA's Aviation Safety Organization (AVS) will send an approval letter to the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality informing it that the FAA's approval is subject to all of the following conditions:
(1) The approval will stipulate those procedures and conditions that limit, to the greatest degree possible, the risk to the operator, while still allowing the operator to achieve its operational objectives.
(2) Before any approval takes effect, the operator must submit to the FAA:
(a) A written release of the U.S. Government from all damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, and
(b) The operator's agreement to indemnify the U.S. Government with respect to any and all third-party damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, relating to any event arising from or related to the approved operations in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR; and
(3) Other conditions that the FAA may specify, including those that may be imposed in OpsSpecs or LOAs, as applicable.
The release and agreement to indemnify do not preclude an operator from raising a claim under an applicable non-premium war risk insurance policy issued by the FAA under chapter 443 of title 49, United States Code.
If the proposed operation or operations are approved, the FAA will issue an OpsSpec or an LOA, as applicable, to the operator authorizing the operation or operations, and will notify the department, agency, or instrumentality that requested the FAA's approval of any additional conditions beyond those contained in the approval letter. The requesting department, agency, or instrumentality must have a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement (or its prime contractor must have a subcontract) with the person(s) described in paragraph (a) of this SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, on whose behalf the department, agency, or instrumentality requests FAA approval.
Any operations not conducted under the approval process set forth previously must be conducted under an exemption from SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611. A request by any person covered under SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, for an exemption must comply with 14 CFR part 11, and will require exceptional circumstances beyond those contemplated by the approval process set forth previously. In addition to the information required by 14 CFR 11.81, at a minimum, the requestor must describe in its submission to the FAA—
• The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the operation;
• The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the SFAR;
• The specific locations in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR where the proposed operation(s) will be conducted, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while operating in the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR and the airports, airfields and/or landing zones at which the aircraft will take-off and land; and
• The method by which the operator will obtain current threat information, and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of its proposed operations (
Additionally, the release and agreement to indemnify, as referred to above, will be required as a condition of any exemption that may be issued under SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611.
The FAA recognizes that operations that may be affected by SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, may be planned for the governments of other countries with the support of the U.S. Government. While these operations will not be permitted through the approval process, the FAA will process exemption requests for such operations on an expedited basis and prior to any private exemption requests.
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses.
Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning for this determination follows:
This SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, prohibits flight operations by persons described in paragraph (a) in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR due to the significant hazards to civil aviation described in the Background section of this rule. This regulation incorporates into the Code of Federal Regulations the prohibition on flight operations issued by the FAA in FDC NOTAM 5/5575 on May 22, 2015, and continued in KICZ NOTAM A0036/15, which was issued on November 25, 2015. An FAA review, conducted in April 2015, of 56 part 121, 121/135, 135, 125, 125M, and 91K operators that held an OpsSpec B450 for Yemen, with 49 responding, found just four operators that had overflown Yemen since January 1, 2015; two of the four operators overflew Yemen just once. None of the responding operators had flown into or out of Yemen since January 1, 2015. A search of FAA and Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) operations records in May 2015 showed no additional activity by U.S. civil operators in the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR. Moreover, under this final rule, a U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality may apply on an operator's behalf for FAA approval to conduct operations under a contract or subcontract, grant, or cooperative agreement with that department, agency, or instrumentality. Accordingly, the FAA believes the incremental costs of this final rule will be minimal. These minimal costs will be exceeded by the benefits of avoiding the deaths or property damage that could result from a U.S. operator's aircraft being shot down (or otherwise damaged) while operating in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR.
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final rule is a “significant regulatory action,” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, because it raises novel policy issues contemplated under that executive order. The rule is also “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, will not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade and will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354, “RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
Based on the above-referenced FAA review and additional FAA check of FAA and BTS operations records, the FAA finds the rule will impose no more than minimal costs. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended, prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to this Act, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
The FAA has assessed the effect of this final rule and determined that its purpose is to protect U.S. civil aviation from a hazard outside the U.S. Therefore, the rule is in compliance with the Trade Agreements Act.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100 million.
This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to this regulation.
FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6f of this order and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has reviewed the implementation of this SFAR and determined it is categorically excluded from further environmental review according to FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.6f. The FAA has examined possible extraordinary circumstances and determined that no such circumstances exist. After careful and thorough consideration of the action, the FAA finds that this Federal action does not require preparation of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the requirements of NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and FAA Order 1050.1F.
The FAA has analyzed this immediately adopted final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications.
The FAA analyzed this immediately adopted final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that this rule would not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—
• Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
• Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at
• Accessing the Government Publishing Office's Web page at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by amendment or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677.
Except for classified material, all documents the FAA considered in developing this rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced above.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the
Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, Freight, Yemen.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).
(a)
(1) All U.S. air carriers and U.S. commercial operators;
(2) All persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and
(3) All operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except where the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Proposed rule; Correction.
The Securities and Exchange Commission published a Proposed Rule in the
Crystal Pemberton, Office of the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, (202) 551-5423.
On page 79773, in the third column add the date of “December 11, 2015” to the signatory block.
In the
Research, Education, and Economics, USDA.
Notice of stakeholder listening session.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App 2, and the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-465), the United States Department of Agriculture announces a stakeholder listening session of the Specialty Crop Committee, a subcommittee of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board.
January 7, 2016 starting at 2:00 p.m. EST.
The Southeast Regional Fruit and Vegetable Conference, Room 105, Savannah International Trade and Convention Center, One International Drive, Savannah, Georgia 31402.
The public may file written comments by January 22, 2016, to: The National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board Office, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 332-A, Jamie L. Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2255 or
Michele Esch, Executive Director, National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board; telephone: (202) 720-8408; fax: (202) 720-6199; or email:
The Specialty Crop Committee was established in accordance with the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 under Title III, Section 303 of Public Law 108-465. This Committee is a permanent subcommittee of the National Agricultural Research Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board (the Board). The Committee's charge is to study the scope and effectiveness of research, extension, and economics programs affecting the specialty crop industry. The congressional legislation defines “specialty crops” as fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits and nursery crops (including floriculture).
In order to carry out its responsibilities effectively, the Committee is holding a stakeholder listening session. The listening session will elicit stakeholder input from industry and state representatives, national organizations and institutions, local producers, and other groups interested in the issues with which the Specialty Crop Committee is charged. This session will be an opportunity to share ideas on the specialty crop industry with members of USDA's Specialty Crop Committee, including: Measures designed to improve the efficiency, productivity, and profitability of specialty crop production in the United States; measures designed to improve competitiveness through research, extension, and economics programs affecting the specialty crop industry; and programs that would: Enhance quality and shelf-life, development of new crop protection tools, preventing foreign invasive pests and diseases, developing new and improved marketing tools, and enhancing food safety, improvement of mechanization of production practices, and enhancing irrigation techniques. Input received will help formulate recommendations from the Specialty Crop Committee to USDA.
Written comments by attendees and other interested stakeholders will be welcomed as additional public input by January 22, 2016. All verbal and written statements will become part of the official public record of the REE Advisory Board Office.
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon quality steel pipe from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) for the period July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015.
Howard Smith or Cara Lofaro, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5193 or (202) 482-5720, respectively.
On September 2, 2015, based on a timely request for review by Wheatland Tube Company (“Wheatland”), the Department published in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, Wheatland timely withdrew its review request by the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order. As a result, we are rescinding the administrative review of circular welded carbon quality steel pipe from the PRC for the period July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because the Department is rescinding this administrative review in its entirety, the entries to which this administrative review pertained shall be assessed antidumping duties that are equal to the cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP within 15 days after the publication of this notice.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with November anniversary dates. The Department also received a request to defer the initiation of the administrative review for one antidumping duty order.
In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.
Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with November anniversary dates. The Department also received a request to defer the initiation of the administrative review for the order on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip.
All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.
On December 17, 2015 the Department received a request to defer the initiation of the administrative review for the order on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd. However, this request was filed untimely and did not follow the procedures outlined in 19 CFR 351.213(c)(1)-(2); accordingly, the Department is denying this request and will initiate this review as described in this notice.
If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 30 days of publication of the initiation
In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the
All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at
Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding
For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than November 30, 2016.
None.
During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
On April 10, 2013, the Department published
Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings:
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this fourth sunset review, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the People's Republic of China
Paul Walker, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0413.
The Department published the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the PRC on January 31, 1984.
Imports covered by this order are shipments of potassium permanganate, an inorganic chemical produced in free-flowing, technical, and pharmaceutical grades. Potassium permanganate is currently classifiable under item 2841.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS item number is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise remains dispositive.
A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review is available in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Potassium Permanganate from the PRC (“Decision Memorandum”), dated concurrently with this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail if the order were to be revoked. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via the Enforcement and Compliance Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Services System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail is up to 128.94 percent.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to requests from Petitioners and SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH), the Department of Commerce (Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded ASTM A-312 stainless steel pipe from Republic of Korea (Korea).
Lingjun Wang, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2316.
The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order is welded austenitic stainless steel pipe that meets
Imports of welded ASTM A-312 stainless steel pipe are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5015, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 7306.40.5064, and 7306.40.5085. Although these subheadings include both pipes and tubes, the scope of the antidumping duty order is limited to welded austenitic stainless steel pipes. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. However, the written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. With respect to LS Metal, we relied on facts available,
For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins for the period December 1, 2013, through November 30, 2014.
The Department intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review and may submit case briefs no 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.
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, filed electronically via ACCESS. 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.
We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review within 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless otherwise extended.
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.
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 welded ASTM A-312 stainless steel pipe from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies under review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review except if that rate is
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 Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council's (Council)
The meeting will be held on Monday, January 11, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Risk Policy Working Group will discuss the implementation and application of the Council's Risk Policy across all Council-managed species; review updated matrix of “baseline conditions” for Council-managed species,
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 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 (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental take authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) regulations, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to the Northeast Gateway® Energy Bridge
Effective December 23, 2015, through December 22, 2016.
A copy of the original and revised application containing a list of the references used in this document, The Maritime Administration (MARAD), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) on the Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge LNG Deepwater Port license application, and other related documents are available for viewing at
Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An 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.”
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for a one-year authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment, provided that there is no potential for serious injury or mortality to result from the activity. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization.
On June 9, 2015, NMFS received an application from Excelerate and Tetra Tech, on behalf of Northeast Gateway and Algonquin, for an authorization to take 14 species of marine mammals by Level B harassment incidental to operations, maintenance, and repair of an LNG port and the Pipeline Lateral facilities in Massachusetts Bay. They are: North Atlantic right whale, humpback whale, fin whale, sei whale, minke whale, long-finned pilot whale, Atlantic white-sided dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, short-beaked common dolphin, killer whale, Risso's dolphin, harbor porpoise, harbor seal, and gray seal. Since LNG Port and Pipeline Lateral operation, maintenance, and repair activities have the potential to take marine mammals, a marine mammal take authorization under the MMPA is warranted.
NMFS first issued an IHA to Northeast Gateway and Algonquin to allow for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals resulting from the construction and operation of the NEG Port and the Algonquin Pipeline Lateral (72 FR 27077; May 14, 2007). Subsequently, NMFS issued five one-year IHAs for the take of marine mammals incidental to the operation of the NEG Port activity pursuant to section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (73 FR 29485, May 21, 2008; 74 FR 45613, September 3, 2009; 75 FR 53672, September 1, 2010; and 76 FR 62778, October 11, 2011). On December 22, 2014, NMFS issued an IHA to NEG and Algonquin to take marine mammals incidental to the operations of the NEG Port as well as maintenance and repair activities (79 FR 78806, December 31, 2014). The current IHA expired on December 21, 2015.
On November 20, 2015, NMFS published a
The proposed NEG and Algonquin activities include the following:
An IHA was previously issued to NEG and Algonquin for this activity on December 22, 2014 (79 FR 78806; December 31, 2014), based on activities described on Excelerate and Tetra Tech's IHA application submitted in June 2014 and on the
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to Northeast Gateway and Algonquin was published in the
During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received a comment letter from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), which is addressed here. NMFS also received one comment letter from a private citizen. However, the contents of that letter are not relevant to our determinations under the MMPA, and therefore they are not addressed here.
General information on the marine mammal species found in Massachusetts Bay can be found in Waring
Marine mammal species that potentially occur in the vicinity of the Northeast Gateway facility can be found in the IHA application and in the earlier
The underwater noise from NEG and Algonquin's LNG Port and Pipeline Lateral operations and maintenance and repair activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammal species and stocks in the vicinity of the action area. The Notice of Proposed IHA included a detailed discussion of the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals, which is not repeated here. No instances of hearing threshold shifts, injury, serious injury, or mortality are expected as a result of these activities given that none of these activities general noises that are above the threshold to cause hearing impairment or injury.
The primary potential impacts to marine mammals and other marine species are associated with elevated sound levels, but the project may also result in additional effects to marine mammal prey species and short-term marine mammal prey loss caused by water usage during LNG degasification. These potential effects are discussed in detail in the
In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) 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, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, their habitat.
For the NEG LNG Port operations and maintenance and repair activities, Excelerate and Tetra Tech worked with NMFS to develop mitigation measures to minimize the potential impacts to marine mammal populations in the project vicinity as a result of the LNG Port and Algonquin Pipeline Lateral operations and maintenance and repair activities. The primary purpose of these mitigation measures is to ensure that no marine mammal would be injured or killed by vessels transiting the LNG Port facility, and to minimize the intensity of noise exposure of marine mammals in the activity area. For the NEG Port and Algonquin Pipeline Lateral operations and maintenance and repair, the following mitigation measures are required.
All vessels shall utilize the International Maritime Organization (IMO)-approved Boston Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) on their approach to and departure from the NEG Port and/or the repair/maintenance area at the earliest practicable point of transit in order to avoid the risk of whale strikes.
Upon entering the TSS and areas where North Atlantic right whales are known to occur, including the Great South Channel Seasonal Management Area (GSC-SMA) and the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS), the Energy Bridge Regasification Vessels (EBRV
(1) Prior to entering and navigating the modified TSS, the Master of the vessel shall:
• Consult Navigational Telex (NAVTEX), NOAA Weather Radio, the NOAA Right Whale Sighting Advisory System (SAS) or other means to obtain current right whale sighting information as well as the most recent Cornell acoustic monitoring buoy data for the potential presence of marine mammals;
• Post a look-out to visually monitor for the presence of marine mammals;
• Provide the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) required 96-hour notification of an arriving EBRV to allow the NEG Port Manager to notify Cornell of vessel arrival.
(2) The look-out shall concentrate his/her observation efforts within the 2-mile radius zone of influence (ZOI) from the maneuvering EBRV.
(3) If marine mammal detection was reported by NAVTEX, NOAA Weather Radio, SAS and/or an acoustic monitoring buoy, the look-out shall concentrate visual monitoring efforts towards the areas of the most recent detection.
(4) If the look-out (or any other member of the crew) visually detects a marine mammal within the 2-mile radius ZOI of a maneuvering EBRV, he/she will take the following actions:
• The Officer-of-the-Watch shall be notified immediately; who shall then relay the sighting information to the Master of the vessel to ensure action(s) can be taken to avoid physical contact with marine mammals.
• The sighting shall be recorded in the sighting log by the designated look-out.
In accordance with 50 CFR 224.103(c), all vessels associated with NEG Port and Pipeline Lateral activities shall not approach closer than 500 yards (460 m) to a North Atlantic right whale and 100 yards (91 m) to other whales to the extent physically feasible given navigational constraints. In addition, when approaching and departing the project area, vessels shall be operated so as to remain at least 1 kilometer away from any visually-detected North Atlantic right whales.
In response to active right whale sightings and active acoustic detections, and taking into account exceptional circumstances, EBRVs as well as repair and maintenance vessels shall take appropriate actions to minimize the risk of striking whales. Specifically, vessels shall:
(1) Respond to active right whale sightings and/or Dynamic Management Areas (DMAs) reported on the Mandatory Ship Reporting (MSR) or SAS by concentrating monitoring efforts towards the area of most recent detection and reducing speed to 10 knots or less if the vessel is within the boundaries of a DMA or within the circular area centered on an area 8 nautical miles (nm) in radius from a sighting location;
(2) Respond to active acoustic detections by concentrating monitoring efforts towards the area of most recent detection and reducing speed to 10 knots or less within an area 5 nm in radius centered on the detecting auto-detection buoy (AB); and
(3) Respond to additional sightings made by the designated look-outs within a 2-mile radius of the vessel by slowing the vessel to 10 knots or less and concentrating monitoring efforts towards the area of most recent sighting.
All vessels operated under NEG and Algonquin must follow the established specific speed restrictions when calling at the NEG Port. The specific speed restrictions required for all vessels (
(1) Vessels shall reduce their maximum transit speed while in the TSS from 12 knots or less to 10 knots or less from March 1 to April 30 in all waters bounded by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated below unless an emergency situation dictates for an alternate speed. This area shall hereafter be referred to as the Off Race Point Seasonal Management Area (ORP-SMA) and tracks NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 224.105:
(2) Vessels shall reduce their maximum transit speed while in the TSS to 10 knots or less unless an emergency situation dictates for an alternate speed from April 1 to July 31 in all waters bounded by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated below. This area shall hereafter be referred to as the GSC-SMA and tracks NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 224.105:
(3) Vessels are not expected to transit the Cape Cod Bay or the Cape Cod Canal; however, in the event that transit through the Cape Cod Bay or the Cape Cod Canal is required, vessels shall reduce maximum transit speed to 10 knots or less from January 1 to May 15 in all waters in Cape Cod Bay, extending to all shorelines of Cape Cod Bay, with a northern boundary of 42°12′ N. latitude and the Cape Cod Canal. This area shall hereafter be referred to as the Cape Cod Bay Seasonal Management Area (CCB-SMA).
(4) All Vessels transiting to and from the project area shall report their activities to the mandatory reporting Section of the USCG to remain apprised of North Atlantic right whale movements within the area. All vessels entering and exiting the MSRA shall report their activities to WHALESNORTH. Vessel operators shall contact the USCG by standard procedures promulgated through the Notice to Mariner system.
(5) All Vessels greater than or equal to 300 gross tons (GT) shall maintain a speed of 10 knots or less, unless an emergency situation requires speeds greater than 10 knots.
(6) All Vessels less than 300 GT traveling between the shore and the project area that are not generally restricted to 10 knots will contact the Mandatory Ship Reporting (MSR) system, the USCG, or the project site before leaving shore for reports of active DMAs and/or recent right whale sightings and, consistent with navigation safety, restrict speeds to 10 knots or less within 5 miles (8 kilometers) of any sighting location, when traveling in any of the seasonal management areas (SMAs) or when traveling in any active DMA.
In addition to the general marine mammal avoidance requirements identified above, vessels calling on the NEG Port must comply with the following additional requirements:
(1) EBRVs shall travel at 10 knots maximum speed when transiting to/from the TSS or to/from the NEG Port/
(2) EBRVs that are approaching or departing from the NEG Port and are within the Area to be Avoided (ATBA) surrounding the NEG Port, shall remain at least 1 km away from any visually-detected North Atlantic right whale and at least 100 yards (91 m) away from all other visually-detected whales unless an emergency situation requires that the vessel stay its course. During EBRV maneuvering, the Vessel Master shall designate at least one look-out to be exclusively and continuously monitoring for the presence of marine mammals at all times while the EBRV is approaching or departing from the NEG Port.
(3) During NEG Port operations, in the event that a whale is visually observed within 1 km of the NEG Port or a confirmed acoustic detection is reported on either of the two ABs closest to the NEG Port (western-most in the TSS array), departing EBRVs shall delay their departure from the NEG Port, unless an emergency situation requires that departure is not delayed. This departure delay shall continue until either the observed whale has been visually (during daylight hours) confirmed as more than 1 km from the NEG Port or 30 minutes have passed without another confirmed detection either acoustically within the acoustic detection range of the two ABs closest to the NEG Port, or visually within 1 km from the NEG Port.
Vessel captains shall focus on reducing dynamic positioning (DP) thruster power to the maximum extent practicable, taking into account vessel and Port safety, during the operation activities. Vessel captains will shut down thrusters whenever they are not needed.
(1) The Northeast Gateway shall conduct empirical source level measurements on all noise emitting construction equipment and all vessels that are involved in maintenance/repair work.
(2) If DP systems are to be employed and/or activities will emit noise with a source level of 139 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m, activities shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements for DP systems listed above.
(3) Northeast Gateway shall provide the NMFS Headquarters Office of the Protected Resources, NMFS Northeast Region Ship Strike Coordinator, and SBNMS with a minimum of 30 days' notice prior to any planned repair and/or maintenance activity. For any unplanned/emergency repair/maintenance activity, Northeast Gateway shall notify the agencies as soon as it determines that repair work must be conducted. Northeast Gateway shall continue to keep the agencies apprised of repair work plans as further details (
(1) Pipeline maintenance/repair vessels less than 300 GT traveling between the shore and the maintenance/repair area that are not generally restricted to 10 knots shall contact the MSR system, the USCG, or the project site before leaving shore for reports of active DMAs and/or recent right whale sightings and, consistent with navigation safety, restrict speeds to 10 knots or less within 5 miles (8 km) of any sighting location, when travelling in any of the seasonal management areas (SMAs) as defined above.
(2) Maintenance/repair vessels greater than 300 GT shall not exceed 10 knots, unless an emergency situation that requires speeds greater than 10 knots.
(3) Planned maintenance and repair activities shall be restricted to the period between May 1 and November 30 when most of the majority of North Atlantic right whales are absent in the area.
(4) Unplanned/emergency maintenance and repair activities shall be conducted utilizing anchor-moored dive vessel whenever operationally possible.
(5) Algonquin shall also provide the NMFS Office of the Protected Resources, NMFS Northeast Region Ship Strike Coordinator, and SBNMS with a minimum of 30-day notice prior to any planned repair and/or maintenance activity. For any unplanned/emergency repair/maintenance activity, Northeast Gateway shall notify the agencies as soon as it determines that repair work must be conducted. Algonquin shall continue to keep the agencies apprised of repair work plans as further details (
(6) If DP systems are to be employed and/or activities will emit noise with a source level of 139 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m, activities shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements for DP systems listed in (5)(b)(ii).
(7) In the event that a whale is visually observed within 0.5 mile (0.8 kilometers) of a repair or maintenance vessel, the vessel superintendent or on-deck supervisor shall be notified immediately. The vessel's crew shall be put on a heightened state of alert and the marine mammal shall be monitored constantly to determine if it is moving toward the repair or maintenance area.
(8) Repair/maintenance vessel(s) must cease any movement and/or cease all activities that emit noises with source level of 139 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 meter or higher when a right whale is sighted within or approaching at 500 yards (457 meters) from the vessel. The source level of 139 dB corresponds to 120 dB received level at 500 yards (457 meters). Repair and maintenance work may resume after the marine mammal is positively reconfirmed outside the established zones (500 yards [457 meters]) or 30 minutes have passed without a redetection. Any vessels transiting the maintenance area, such as barges or tugs, must also maintain these separation distances.
(9) Repair/maintenance vessel(s) must cease any movement and/or cease all activities that emit noises with source level of 139 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 meter or higher when a marine mammal other than a right whale is sighted within or approaching at 100 yards (91 meters) from the vessel. Repair and maintenance work may resume after the marine mammal is positively reconfirmed outside the established zones (100 yards [91 meters]) or 30 minutes have passed without a redetection. Any vessels transiting the maintenance area, such as barges or tugs, must also maintain these separation distances.
(10) Algonquin and associated contractors shall also comply with the following:
• Operations involving excessively noisy equipment (source level exceeding 139 dB re 1μPa @ 1 meter) shall “ramp-up” sound sources, allowing whales a chance to leave the area before sounds reach maximum levels. In addition, Northeast Gateway, Algonquin, and other associated contractors shall maintain equipment to manufacturers' specifications, including any sound-muffling devices or engine covers in order to minimize noise effects. Noisy construction equipment shall only be used as needed and equipment shall be turned off when not in operation.
• Any material that has the potential to entangle marine mammals (
• For any material that has the potential to entangle marine mammals, such material shall be removed from the water immediately unless such action jeopardizes the safety of the vessel and crew as determined by the Captain of the vessel.
• In the event that a marine mammal becomes entangled, the marine mammal coordinator and/or protected species observer (PSO) will notify NMFS (if outside the SBNMS), and SBNMS staff (if inside the SBNMS) immediately so that a rescue effort may be initiated.
(11) All maintenance/repair activities shall be scheduled to occur between May 1 and November 30; however, in the event of unplanned/emergency repair work that cannot be scheduled during the preferred May through November work window, the following additional measures shall be followed for Pipeline Lateral maintenance and repair related activities between December and April:
• Between December 1 and April 30, if on-board PSOs do not have at least 0.5-mile visibility, they shall call for a shutdown. At the time of shutdown, the use of thrusters must be minimized. If there are potential safety problems due to the shutdown, the captain will decide what operations can safely be shut down.
• Prior to leaving the dock to begin transit, the barge shall contact one of the PSOs on watch to receive an update of sightings within the visual observation area. If the PSO has observed a North Atlantic right whale within 30 minutes of the transit start, the vessel shall hold for 30 minutes and again get a clearance to leave from the PSOs on board. PSOs shall assess whale activity and visual observation ability at the time of the transit request to clear the barge for release.
• Transit route, destination, sea conditions and any marine mammal sightings/mitigation actions during watch shall be recorded in the log book. Any whale sightings within 1,000 meters of the vessel shall result in a high alert and slow speed of 4 knots or less and a sighting within 750 meters shall result in idle speed and/or ceasing all movement.
• The material barges and tugs used in repair and maintenance shall transit from the operations dock to the work sites during daylight hours when possible provided the safety of the vessels is not compromised. Should transit at night be required, the maximum speed of the tug shall be 5 knots.
• All repair vessels must maintain a speed of 10 knots or less during daylight hours. All vessels shall operate at 5 knots or less at all times within 5 km of the repair area.
Vessels associated with maintaining the AB network operating as part of the mitigation/monitoring protocols shall adhere to the following speed restrictions and marine mammal monitoring requirements.
(1) In accordance with 50 CFR 224.103 (c), all vessels associated with NEG Port activities shall not approach closer than 500 yards (460 meters) to a North Atlantic right whale.
(2) All vessels shall obtain the latest DMA or right whale sighting information via the NAVTEX, MSR, SAS, NOAA Weather Radio, or other available means prior to operations.
NMFS has carefully evaluated these mitigation measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable 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 measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals.
• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned.
• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
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 the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:
(1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
(2) A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of pile driving and pile removal or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
(3) A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of pile driving, 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).
(4) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal 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.
(5) For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the measures that include vessel speed reduction, noise level related shutdown measures, and ramping up procedures, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that 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 IHAs 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 in the proposed action area.
Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:
(1) An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;
(2) An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to levels of pile driving that we associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or PTS;
(3) An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:
Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);
Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);
Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;
(4) An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
(5) An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.
Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals shall be done by trained look-outs during NEG LNG Port and Pipeline Lateral operations and maintenance and repair activities. The observers shall monitor the occurrence of marine mammals near the vessels during LNG Port and Pipeline Lateral related activities. Lookout duties include watching for and identifying marine mammals; recording their numbers, distances, and reactions to the activities; and documenting “take by harassment.” The vessel look-outs assigned to visually monitor for the presence of marine mammals shall be provided with the following:
(1) Recent NAVTEX, NOAA Weather Radio, SAS and/or acoustic monitoring buoy detection data;
(2) Binoculars to support observations;
(3) Marine mammal detection guide sheets; and
(4) Sighting log.
All individuals onboard the EBRVs responsible for the navigation duties and any other personnel that could be assigned to monitor for marine mammals shall receive training on marine mammal sighting/reporting and vessel strike avoidance measures.
While an EBRV is navigating within the designated TSS, there shall be three people with look-out duties on or near the bridge of the ship including the Master, the Officer-of-the-Watch and the Helmsman-on-watch. In addition to the standard watch procedures, while the EBRV is transiting within the designated TSS, maneuvering within the ATBA, and/or while actively engaging in the use of thrusters, an additional look-out shall be designated to exclusively and continuously monitor for marine mammals.
All sightings of marine mammals by the designated look-out, individuals posted to navigational look-out duties, and/or any other crew member while the EBRV is transiting within the TSS, maneuvering within the ATBA and/or when actively engaging in the use of thrusters, shall be immediately reported to the Officer-of-the-Watch who shall then alert the Master. The Master or Officer-of-the-Watch shall ensure the required reporting procedures are followed and the designated marine mammal look-out records all pertinent information relevant to the sighting.
Visual sightings made by look-outs from the EBRVs shall be recorded using a standard sighting log form. Estimated locations shall be reported for each individual and/or group of individuals categorized by species when known. This data shall be entered into a database and a summary of monthly sighting activity shall be provided to NMFS. Estimates of take and copies of these log sheets shall also be included in the reports to NMFS.
Two qualified and NMFS-approved PSOs shall be assigned to each vessel that will use DP systems during maintenance and repair related activities. PSOs shall operate individually in designated shifts to accommodate adequate rest schedules. Additional PSOs shall be assigned to additional vessels if AB data indicates that sound levels exceed 120 dB re 1 µPa, further then 100 meters (328 feet) from these vessels.
All PSOs shall receive NMFS-approved marine mammal observer training and be approved in advance by NMFS after review of their resume. All PSOs shall have direct field experience on marine mammal vessels and/or aerial surveys in the Atlantic Ocean/Gulf of Mexico.
PSOs (one primary and one secondary) shall be responsible for visually locating marine mammals at the ocean's surface and, to the extent possible, identifying the species. The primary PSO shall act as the identification specialist and the secondary PSO will serve as data recorder and also assist with identification. Both PSOs shall have responsibility for monitoring for the presence of marine mammals and sea turtles. Specifically PSO's shall:
(1) Monitor at all hours of the day, scanning the ocean surface by eye for a minimum of 40 minutes every hour.
(2) Monitor the area where maintenance and repair work is conducted beginning at daybreak using 25x power binoculars and/or hand-held binoculars. Night vision devices must be provided as standard equipment for monitoring during low-light hours and at night.
(3) Conduct general 360° visual monitoring during any given watch period and target scanning by the observer shall occur when alerted of a whale presence.
(4) Alert the vessel superintendent or construction crew supervisor of visual detections within 2 miles (3.31 kilometers) immediately.
(5) Record all sightings on marine mammal field sighting logs. Specifically, all data shall be entered at the time of observation, notes of activities will be kept, and a daily report prepared and attached to the daily field sighting log form. The basic reporting requirements include the following:
• Beaufort sea state;
• Wind speed;
• Wind direction;
• Temperature;
• Precipitation;
• Glare;
• Percent cloud cover;
• Number of animals;
• Species;
• Position;
• Distance;
• Behavior;
• Direction of movement; and
• Apparent reaction to construction activity.
In the event that a whale is visually observed within the 2-mile (3.31 kilometers) zone of influence (ZOI) of a DP vessel or other construction vessel that has shown to emit noise with source level in excess of 139 dB re 1 µPa @ 1 m, the PSO will notify the repair/maintenance construction crew to minimize the use of thrusters until the animal has moved away, unless there are divers in the water or an ROV is deployed.
Northeast Gateway shall deploy 10 ABs within the Separation Zone of the TSS for the operational life of the Project. The ABs shall be used to detect
(1) The initial operational events in the 2015-2016 winter heating season;
(2) Regular deliveries outside the winter heating season should such deliveries occur; and
(3) Scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and repair activities.
Northeast Gateway shall conduct long-term monitoring of the noise environment in Massachusetts Bay in the vicinity of the NEG Port and Pipeline Lateral using marine autonomous recording units (MARUs) when there is anticipated to be more than 5 LNG shipments in a 30-day period or over 20 shipments in a six-month period.
The acoustic data collected shall be analyzed to document the seasonal occurrences and overall distributions of whales (primarily fin, humpback and right whales) within approximately 10 nm of the NEG Port and shall measure and document the noise “budget” of Massachusetts Bay so as to eventually assist in determining whether or not an overall increase in noise in the Bay associated with the Project might be having a potentially negative impact on marine mammals.
Northeast Gateway shall make all acoustic data, including data previously collected by the MARUs during prior construction, operations, and maintenance and repair activities, available to NOAA. Data storage will be the responsibility of NOAA.
(1) Ten ABs that have been deployed since 2007 shall be used to continuously screen the low-frequency acoustic environment (less than 1,000 Hertz) for right whale contact calls occurring within an approximately 5-nm radius from each buoy (the AB's detection range).
(2) Once a confirmed detection is made, the Master of any EBRVs operating in the area will be alerted immediately.
(1) If the repair/maintenance work is located outside of the detectible range of the 10 project area ABs, Northeast Gateway and Algonquin shall consult with NOAA (NMFS and SBNMS) to determine if the work to be conducted warrants the temporary installation of an additional AB(s) to help detect and provide early warnings for potential occurrence of right whales in the vicinity of the repair area.
(2) The number of ABs installed around the activity site shall be commensurate with the type and spatial extent of maintenance/repair work required, but must be sufficient to detect vocalizing right whales within the 120-dB impact zone.
(3) Should acoustic monitoring be deemed necessary during a planned or unplanned/emergency repair and/or maintenance event, active monitoring for right whale calls shall begin 24 hours prior to the start of activities.
(4) Source level data from the acoustic recording units deployed in the NEG Port and/or Pipeline Lateral maintenance and repair area shall be provided to NMFS.
(a) Throughout NEG Port and Pipeline Lateral operations, Northeast Gateway and Algonquin shall provide a monthly Monitoring Report. The Monitoring Report shall include:
• Both copies of the raw visual EBRV lookout sighting information of marine mammals that occurred within 2 miles of the EBRV while the vessel transits within the TSS, maneuvers within the ATBA, and/or when actively engaging in the use of thrusters, and a summary of the data collected by the look-outs over each reporting period.
• Copies of the raw PSO sightings information on marine mammals gathered during pipeline repair or maintenance activities. This visual sighting data shall then be correlated to periods of thruster activity to provide estimates of marine mammal takes (per species/species class) that took place during each reporting period.
• Conclusion of any planned or unplanned/emergency repair and/or maintenance period, a report shall be submitted to NMFS summarizing the repair/maintenance activities, marine mammal sightings (both visual and acoustic), empirical source-level measurements taken during the repair work, and any mitigation measures taken.
(b) During the maintenance and repair of NEG Port and Pipeline Lateral components, weekly status reports shall be provided to NOAA (both NMFS and SBNMS) using standardized reporting forms. The weekly reports shall include data collected for each distinct marine mammal species observed in the repair/maintenance area during the period that maintenance and repair activities were taking place. The weekly reports shall include the following information:
• Location (in longitude and latitude coordinates), time, and the nature of the maintenance and repair activities;
• Indication of whether a DP system was operated, and if so, the number of thrusters being used and the time and duration of DP operation;
• Marine mammals observed in the area (number, species, age group, and initial behavior);
• The distance of observed marine mammals from the maintenance and repair activities;
• Changes, if any, in marine mammal behaviors during the observation;
• A description of any mitigation measures (power-down, shutdown, etc.) implemented;
• Weather condition (Beaufort sea state, wind speed, wind direction, ambient temperature, precipitation, and percent cloud cover etc.);
• Condition of the observation (visibility and glare); and
• Details of passive acoustic detections and any action taken in response to those detections.
(c) Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting
In the unanticipated event that survey operations clearly cause the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the proposed IHA, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or mortality (
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• The name and type of vessel involved;
• The vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• The fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is available).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with NEG and/or Algonquin to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) compliance. NEG and/or Algonquin may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that NEG and/or Algonquin discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that NEG or Algonquin discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized (if the IHA is issued) (
Prior marine mammal monitoring during NEG's LNG Port and Algonquin Pipeline Lateral operation, maintenance and repair activities and monthly marine mammal observation memorandums (NEG 2010; 2015) indicate that only a small number of marine mammals were observed during these activities. Only one LNG Port operation occurred within the dates of the previous IHA (December 22, 2014 through December 21, 2015) and no marine mammal was observed during the LNG Port operation period on December 31, 2014. No other NEG Port and Pipeline Lateral related activity occurred during this period.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]. Only take by Level B harassment is anticipated as a result of NEG's operation and maintenance and repair activities. Anticipated take of marine mammals is associated with operation of dynamic positioning during the docking of the LNG vessels and positioning of maintenance and dive vessels, and by operations of certain machinery during maintenance and repair activities. The regasification process itself is an activity that does not rise to the level of taking, as the modeled source level for this activity is 108 dB. Certain species may have a behavioral reaction to the sound emitted during the activities. Hearing impairment is not anticipated. Additionally, vessel strikes are not anticipated, especially because of the speed restriction measures that are proposed that were described earlier in this document.
The full suite of potential impacts to marine mammals from the types of stressors associated with the specified activity was described in detail in the “Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals” section found earlier in this document. The potential effects of sound from the proposed NEG and Algonquin LNG Port and Pipeline Lateral operations, maintenance and repair activities might include one or more of the following: Masking of natural sounds and behavioral disturbance (Richardson
For non-pulse sounds, such as those produced by operating dynamic positioning (DP) thruster during vessel docking and supporting underwater construction and repair activities and the operations of various machineries that produces non-pulse noises, NMFS uses the 120 dB (rms) re 1 μPa isopleth to indicate the onset of Level B harassment.
For the purposes of understanding the noise footprint of operations at the NEG Port, measurements taken to capture operational noise (docking, undocking, regasification, and EBRV thruster use) during the 2006 Gulf of Mexico field event were taken at the source. Measurements taken during EBRV transit were normalized to a distance of 328 feet (100 meters) to serve as a basis for modeling sound propagation at the NEG Port site in Massachusetts Bay.
Sound propagation calculations for operational activities were then completed at two positions in Massachusetts Bay to determine site-specific distances to the 120/160/180 dB isopleths:
• Operations Position 1—Port (EBRV Operations): 70°36.261′ W. and 42°23.790′ N.
• Operations Position 2—Boston TSS (EBRV Transit): 70°17.621′ W. and 42°17.539′ N.
At each of these locations sound propagation calculations were performed to determine the noise footprint of the operation activity at each of the specified locations. Updated acoustic modeling was completed using Tetra Tech's underwater sound propagation program which utilizes a version of the publicly available Range Dependent Acoustic Model (RAM). Based on the U.S. Navy's Standard Split-Step Fourier Parabolic Equation, this modeling methodology considers
Modeling analysis conducted for the construction of the NEG Port concluded that the only underwater noise of critical concern during NEG Port construction would be from vessel noises such as turning screws, engine noise, noise of operating machinery, and thruster use. To confirm these modeled results and better understand the noise footprint associated with construction activities at the NEG Port, field measurements were taken of various construction activities during the 2007 NEG Port and Algonquin Pipeline Lateral Construction period. Measurements were taken and normalized as described to establish the “loudest” potential construction measurement event. One position within Massachusetts Bay was then used to determine site-specific distances to the 120/180 dB isopleths for NEG Port maintenance and repair activities:
• Construction Position 1. Port: 70°36.261′ W. and 42°23.790′ N.
Sound propagation calculations were performed to determine the noise footprint of the construction activity. The results showed that the estimated distance from the loudest source involved in construction activities fell to 120 dB re 1 µPa at a distance of 3,500 m.
Modeling analysis conducted during the NEG Port and Pipeline Lateral construction concluded that the only underwater noise of critical concern during such activities would be from vessel noises such as turning screws, engine noise, noise of operating machinery, and thruster use. As with construction noise at the NEG Port, to confirm modeled results and better understand the noise footprint associated with construction activities along the Algonquin Pipeline Lateral, field measurements were taken of various construction activities during the 2007 NEG Port and Algonquin Pipeline Lateral construction period. Measurements were taken and normalized to establish the “loudest” potential construction measurement event. Two positions within Massachusetts Bay were then used to determine site-specific distances to the 120/160/180 dB isopleths:
• Construction Position 2. PLEM: 70°46.755′ W. and 42°28.764′ N.
• Construction Position 3. Mid-Pipeline: 70°40.842′ W. and 42°31.328′ N.
Sound propagation calculations were performed to determine the noise footprint of the construction activity. The results of the distances to the 120-dB are shown in Table 2.
The basis for Northeast Gateway and Algonquin's “take” estimate is the number of marine mammals that would be exposed to sound levels in excess of 120 dB, which is the threshold used by NMFS for non-pulse sounds. For the NEG LNG Port and Algonquin Pipeline Lateral operations and maintenance and repair activities, the take estimates are determined by multiplying the 120-dB ensonified area by local marine mammal density estimates, and then multiplying by the estimated dates such activities would occur during a year-long period. For the NEG Port operations, the 120-dB ensonified area is 56.8 km
Since the issuance of an IHA to NEG on December 19, 2014, there was only one LNG delivery at the NEG Port which occurred on December 31, 2014. NEG expects that when the Port is under full operation, it will receive up to 65 LNG shipments per year, and would require 14 days for NEG Port maintenance and up to 40 days for planned and unplanned Algonquin Pipeline Lateral maintenance and repair.
NMFS recognizes that baleen whale species other than North Atlantic right whales have been sighted in the project area from May to November. However, the occurrence and abundance of fin, humpback, and minke whales is not well documented within the project area. Nonetheless, NMFS uses the data on cetacean distribution within Massachusetts Bay, such as those published by the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS 2006), to estimate potential takes of marine mammals species in the vicinity of project area.
The NCCOS study used cetacean sightings from two sources: (1) The North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium (NARWC) sightings database held at the University of Rhode Island (Kenney, 2001); and (2) the Manomet Bird Observatory (MBO) database, held at NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science
The MBO's Cetacean and Seabird Assessment Program (CSAP) was contracted from 1980 to 1988 by NMFS NEFSC to provide an assessment of the relative abundance and distribution of cetaceans, seabirds, and marine turtles in the shelf waters of the northeastern United States (MBO, 1987). The CSAP program was designed to be completely compatible with NMFS NEFSC databases so that marine mammal data could be compared directly with fisheries data throughout the time series during which both types of information were gathered. A total of 5,210 km (8,383 mi) of survey distance and 636 cetacean observations from the MBO data were included in the NCCOS analysis. Combined valid survey effort for the NCCOS studies included 567,955 km (913,840 mi) of survey track for small cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises) and 658,935 km (1,060,226 mi) for large cetaceans (whales) in the southern Gulf of Maine. The NCCOS study then combined these two data sets by extracting cetacean sighting records, updating database field names to match the NARWC database, creating geometry to represent survey tracklines and applying a set of data selection criteria designed to minimize uncertainty and bias in the data used.
Owing to the comprehensiveness and total coverage of the NCCOS cetacean distribution and abundance study, NMFS calculated the estimated take number of marine mammals based on the most recent NCCOS report published in December 2006. A summary of seasonal cetacean distribution and abundance in the project area was provided in the 2013
In calculating the area density of these species from these linear density data, NMFS used 0.5 mi (0.825 km) as the hypothetical strip width (W). This strip width is based on the distance of visibility used in the NARWC data that was part of the NCCOS (2006) study. However, those surveys used a strip transect instead of a line transect methodology. Therefore, in order to obtain a strip width, one must divide the visibility or transect value in half. A 0.825 km hypothetical strip width was chosen for density calculation, which roughly equals to 0.5 mi as half the distance of the radius for visual monitoring. The hypothetical strip width used in the analysis is less than half of that derived from the NARWC data. Therefore, the analysis provided here is more protective in calculating marine mammal densities in the area. Based on this information, the area density (D) of these species in the project area can be obtained by the following formula:
where D is marine mammal density in the area, and W is the strip width. For example, the take calculation for the North Atlantic right whale is:
Based on this calculation method, the estimated take numbers per year for North Atlantic right, fin, humpback, sei, minke, and pilot whales, and Atlantic white-sided dolphins by the NEG Port facility operations (maximum 65 visits per year), NEG Port maintenance and repair (up to 14 days per year), and Algonquin Pipeline Lateral operation and maintenance (up to 40 days per year), are 29, 35, 42, 30, 21, 145, and 469, respectively (Table 3). Since it is very likely that individual animals could be “taken” by harassment multiple times, these percentages are the upper boundary of the animal population that could be affected. The actual number of individual animals being exposed or taken would likely be far less. There is no danger of injury, death, or hearing impairment from the exposure to these noise levels.
In addition, bottlenose dolphins, common dolphins, killer whales, Risso's dolphins, harbor porpoises, harbor seals, and gray seals could also be taken by Level B harassment as a result of deepwater NEG Port and Algonquin Pipeline Lateral operations and maintenance and repair. Since these species are less likely to occur in the area, and there are no density estimates specific to this particular area, NMFS based their sighting occurrence in the vicinity of the project area (SBNMS 2015). Therefore, NMFS estimates that up to approximately 20 bottlenose dolphins, 40 short-beaked common dolphins, 40 Risso's dolphins, 10 killer whales, 20 harbor porpoises, 60 harbor seals, and 30 gray seals could be exposed to continuous noise at or above 120 dB re 1 µPa rms incidental to operations during the one year period of the IHA, respectively. Since no population/stock estimates for killer whale and gray seal is available, the percentage of estimated takes for these species is unknown. Nevertheless, since Massachusetts Bay represents only a small fraction of the western North Atlantic basin where these animals occur, NMFS considers that the takes of 10 killer whales and 30 gray seals represent a small fraction of the population and stocks of these species (Table 3).
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 (
To avoid repetition, this discussion of our analysis applies to all the species and stocks listed in Table 3, given that the anticipated effects of NE Gateway LNG Port and Algonquin Pipeline Lateral operations, maintenance, and repair activities on marine mammals (taking into account the proposed mitigation) are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts on habitat, they are discussed below.
No injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of NE Gateway and Algonquin's proposed Port and Pipeline Lateral operations, maintenance, and repair activities, and none are authorized. Additionally, animals in the area are not expected to incur hearing impairment (
The area of the NEG and Algonquin's specified activities is a biologically important area (BIA) for feeding for the North Atlantic right whale in February to April, humpback whale in March to December, fin whale year-round, and minke whale in March to November (LaBrecque
NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks. The requested takes represent less than 8.4% of all populations or stocks for which NMFS was able to quantify the estimated percentage, and we have determined that a small fraction of affected killer whales and grey seal populations will be taken based on our qualitative assessments (see
There are no subsistence uses of marine mammals in the proposed project area; and, thus, no subsistence uses impacted by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks
Our November 18, 2013,
NMFS' PR1 has determined that the activities described in here are the same as those analyzed in the November 21, 2014, Biological Opinion. Therefore, a new consultation is not required for issuance of this IHA.
MARAD and the USCG released a Final EIS/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Northeast Gateway Port and Pipeline Lateral. NMFS was a cooperating agency (as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1501.6)) in the preparation of the Draft and Final EISs. NMFS reviewed the Final EIS and adopted it on May 4, 2007. NMFS issued a separate Record of Decision for issuance of authorizations pursuant to section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA for the construction and operation of the Northeast Gateway's LNG Port Facility in Massachusetts Bay.
We have reviewed the NEG's application for a renewed IHA for ongoing activities for 2015-16 and the 2014-15 monitoring report. Based on that review, we have determined that the proposed action is very similar to that considered in the previous IHA. In addition, no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns have been identified. Thus, we have determined that the preparation of a new or supplemental NEPA document is not necessary.
NMFS has issued an IHA to Northeast Gateway and Algonquin for conducting LNG Port facility and Pipeline Lateral operations and maintenance and repair activities in Massachusetts Bay, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice, Webinars.
The National Ocean Service (NOS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) publishes this notice to announce town hall-style webinars to promote discussion between federal representatives and stakeholders on topics related to harmful algal blooms (HABs) and hypoxia occurring in the Great Lakes region. These webinars are being conducted in accordance with the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2014 (HABHRCA), which directs federal agencies to advance the understanding of HAB and hypoxia events, and to respond to, detect, predict, control, and mitigate these events to the greatest extent possible.
Through these webinars, the Interagency Working Group on HABHRCA (IWG-HABHRCA) seeks to engage a wide range of stakeholders in the Great lakes region, including scientists, resource managers, agricultural producers, commercial and recreational fishermen, other industry interests, international and non-profit organizations, and the interested public.
See
See
Caitlin Gould (
NOAA is publishing this notice to announce webinars designed to promote conversation between federal representatives and stakeholders on a number of topics related to HABs and hypoxia, which impact human and animal health, local and regional economies, and long-term national security. The IWG-HABHRCA will consult with stakeholders on topics that include:
• Regional, Great Lakes-specific priorities for ecological, economic, and social research on the causes and impacts of HABs and hypoxia; need for improved monitoring and early warning; new approaches to improving scientific understanding, prediction and modeling, and socioeconomic analyses of these events; and mitigating causes and impacts of HABs and hypoxia;
• Communication and information dissemination methods that state, tribal, local, and international governments and organizations may undertake to educate and inform the public concerning HABs and hypoxia in the Great Lakes; and
• Perceived needs for handling Great Lakes HAB and hypoxia events, as well as an action strategy for managing future situations.
Stakeholders are encouraged to submit comments and questions in
○ To join the teleconference only:
Provide your number when you join the meeting to receive a call back.
Alternatively, you can call one of the following numbers:
Follow the instructions that you hear on the phone. Your Cisco Unified MeetingPlace meeting ID: 747 264 241
•
○ To join the teleconference only:
Provide your number when you join the meeting to receive a call back.
Alternatively, you can call one of the following numbers:
•
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Form Number(s):
• PTO/SB/2048
Once submitted, the request will be publicly available in electronic format through reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
Further information can be obtained by:
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before February 8, 2016 to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, via email to
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 8, 2016.
Comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA)” in OMB, within 30 days of the notice's publication, by email at
Comments may also be mailed to: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581 or by Hand Deliver/Courier at the same address.
A copy of the supporting statements for the collection of information discussed above may be obtained by visiting
Christopher Hower, Special Counsel, Division of Clearing and Risk, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-6703; email:
Section 4s(j)(2) requires each Swap Dealer (“SD”) and Major Swap Participant (“MSP”) to have risk management systems adequate for managing its business. Section 4s(j)(4) requires each SD and MSP to have internal systems and procedures to perform any of the functions set forth in Section 4s.
Section 4d requires FCMs to register with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”). It further requires Futures Commission Merchants (“FCMs”) to segregate customer funds. Section 4f requires FCMs to maintain certain levels of capital. Section 4g establishes reporting and recordkeeping requirements for FCMs.
Pursuant to these provisions, the Commission adopted § 1.73 which applies to clearing members that are FCMs and § 23.609 which applies to clearing members that are SDs or MSPs. These provisions require these clearing members to have procedures to limit the financial risks they incur as a result of clearing trades and liquid resources to meet the obligations that arise. The regulations require clearing members to:
(1) Establish credit and market risk-based limits based on position size, order size, margin requirements, or similar factors;
(2) use automated means to screen orders for compliance with the risk-based limits;
(3) monitor for adherence to the risk-based limits intra-day and overnight;
(4) conduct stress tests of all positions in the proprietary account and all positions in any customer account that could pose material risk to the futures commission merchant at least once per week;
(5) evaluate its ability to meet initial margin requirements at least once per week;
(6) evaluate its ability to meet variation margin requirements in cash at least once per week;
(7) evaluate its ability to liquidate the positions it clears in an orderly manner, and estimate the cost of the liquidation at least once per month; and
(8) test all lines of credit at least once per quarter.
Each of these items has been observed by Commission staff as an element of an existing sound risk management program at an SD, MSP, or FCM. The Commission regulations require each clearing member to establish written procedures to comply with this regulation and to keep records documenting its compliance. The information collection obligations imposed by the regulations are necessary to implement certain provisions of the CEA, including ensuring that registrants exercise effective risk management and for the efficient operation of trading venues among SDs, MSPs, and FCMs. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The Commission did not receive any comments on the 60-day
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
44 U.S.C. 3501
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of Intent.
In compliance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), the Department of the Army hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Schafer Aerospace; a corporation having its principle place of business at 2309 Renard Place SE., Suite 300, Albuquerque, NM 87106, exclusive license in the field of fiber laser array systems with specific application in the areas of laser communication, beam aberration correction, Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR/LADAR), beam steering (random access) and precision pointing and tracking. The proposed license would be relative to the following:
• U.S Patent Application Number 2014/0231618 entitled “Apparatus for Coherent Beam Combining in an Array of Laser Collimators”, Inventors Beresnev
• U.S Patent Application Number 2014/0241665 entitled “Light Beam Collimator Particularly Suitable for a Densely Packed Array”, Inventor Beresnev, Filing date February 28, 2013.
• U.S Patent Application Number 2013/0342078 entitled “Apparatus and Method of Making a Multi-Layered Piezoelectric Actuator”, Inventor Beresnev, Filing Date August 27, 2013.
The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Competing applications completed and received by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license.
Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Send written objections to U.S. Army Research Laboratory Technology Transfer and Outreach Office, RDRL-DPT/Thomas Mulkern, Building 321 Room 110, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425.
Thomas Mulkern, (410) 278-0889, EMail:
None.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Sarah A. Ragan or Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) 604-1546/(703) 607-5339.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-11 with attached Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Also included are the following non-MDE items; U.S. Government technical assistance, above the line transportation cost, and other related elements of logistics and program support to include equipment purchased in prior related Foreign Military Sales cases. The estimated cost is $55 million.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
Lithuania has requested a possible sale of two-hundred and twenty (220) Javelin Missiles, ten (10) Javelin Fly-to-Buy Missiles, seventy-four (74) Javelin Command Launch Units (CLU), U.S. Government technical assistance, above the line transportation cost, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated value of MDE is $45.2 million. The overall total estimated value is $55 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States. The sale of Javelins will provide additional opportunities for bilateral engagements and greater interoperability with U.S. and allied forces. Neighboring NATO Allies would view this procurement as a positive step towards ensuring regional stability. The proposed sale directly supports U.S. national security interests by bolstering the Lithuanian military's ability to effectively defend its border and effectively coordinate regional border security with its Baltic neighbors.
The proposed sale of Javelins will provide Lithuania with increased capacity to meet its defensive needs. Supporting the Lithuanian Land Force's modernization also supports the fielding of forces better able to contribute to NATO operations in the future. Lithuania will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment, services, and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractors will be Raytheon/Lockheed Martin Javelin Joint Venture of Orlando, Florida, and Tucson, Arizona. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Lithuania.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Javelin Weapon System is a medium-range, man-portable, shoulder-launched, fire-and-forget, anti-armor system. Javelin uses fire-and-forget technology which allows the gunner to fire and immediately relocate or take cover. Other features include top attack and direct fire modes, an advanced tandem warhead and imaging infrared seeker, target lock-on before launch, and soft launch from enclosures. The Javelin missile also has a minimum smoke motor thus decreasing its detection on the battlefield. The Javelin Training System consists of the following training devices: The missile simulation round, the basic skills trainer and the field tactical trainer, Javelin Weapon Effects Simulator (JAVWES), and tripod.
2. The Javelin Weapon System comprises two major tactical components, which include a reusable Command Launch Unit (CLU) and a round contained in a disposable launch tube assembly. The CLU incorporates an integrated day-night sight that provides a target engagement capability in adverse weather and countermeasure environments. The CLU may also be used in a stand-alone mode for battlefield surveillance and target detection. The CLU's thermal sight is a second generation Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) sensor operating in the 8-10 micron wavelength and has a 240 X 2 scanning array with a Dewar-coolant unit. To facilitate initial loading and subsequent updating of software, all on-board missile software is uploaded via the CLU after mating and prior to launch.
3. The Javelin Missile System hardware and the documentation are UNCLASSIFIED. The missile software which resides in the CLU is considered sensitive. The sensitivity is primarily in the software programs which instruct the system how to operate in the presence of countermeasures. Programs are contained in the system in the form of microprocessors with Read Only Memory (ROM) maps, which do not provide the software program itself. The overall hardware is considered sensitive in that the modulation frequency and infrared wavelengths could be used in countermeasure development.
4. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
5. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. Moreover, the benefits to be derived from this sale, as outlined in the Policy Justification, outweigh the potential damage that could result if the sensitive technology were revealed to unauthorized persons.
6. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Lithuania.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.
Notice.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is providing notification of public meetings to obtain comment on the Draft EIS noted above to facilitate compliance with, in part, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is providing notification of Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) Section 810 Hearings related to the preliminary ANILCA 810 Findings contained in the above Draft EIS. Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act requires the BLM to evaluate the effects of plans presented in this Draft EIS on subsistence activities in the area of the proposed action and its alternatives, and to hold public hearings if it finds that any alternative may significantly restrict subsistence activities. The analysis of environmental consequences indicates the proposed action may significantly restrict subsistence in some portions of the proposed project area. Therefore, the BLM is holding public hearings on potential subsistence impacts in conjunction with the public meetings discussed below. BLM's preliminary ANILCA 810 Findings are contained in Appendix N of the Draft EIS.
See
See
Mr. Keith Gordon, Project Manager, U.S.
Communities in which public meetings and hearings are scheduled are as follows (all communities are in Alaska):
Aniak—January 20, 2016, Crooked Creek—January 21, 2016, Anchorage—January 28, 2016, Bethel—February 1, 2016, Akiak—February 2, 2016, Nunapitchuk—February 3, 2016, Quinhagak—February 16, 2016, McGrath—February 26, 2016, Holy Cross—March 30, 2016, Tyonek—To be determined, Lower Kalskag—To be determined. Please note that no preliminary 810 finding of potential substantial significant restriction of subsistence has been made for Holy Cross. An 810 Hearing will be held due to its proximity to the proposed project and the existing level of subsistence use information (mapping) available.
Communities in which only public meetings are scheduled, as no preliminary 810 finding of potential substantial significant restriction of subsistence has been made, includes (all communities are in Alaska):
Kipnuk—February 17, 2016, St. Mary's—March 1, 2016, Emmonak—March 2, 2016, Toksook Bay—March 15, 2016, Hooper Bay—March 16, 2016.
Any changes to these dates and locations, as well as specific meeting and hearing locations and times in each community can be found at
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of Intent.
The study is being conducted under the authority contained in the 1958 Water Supply Act (Pub. L. 85-500), Section 301, as amended in 43 United States Code (U.S.C.) 390b and by the River and Harbor Flood Control Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-611), as amended, under Section 216 and under guidance provided in ER 1105-2-100. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will prepare an integrated Draft Feasibility Report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that describes the results of investigations and analyses used to make determinations as to whether and/or what amount of flood storage might be reallocated to water supply to meet the needs of Region C and Region D. The Sulphur River Basin Authority (SRBA) is the non-federal sponsor to study the feasibility of reallocation (converting flood storage to water supply or raising the pool level) while protecting the City of Texarkana's water rights of 180,000 acre-feet (AF) per year. SRBA's sponsorship is for the study only. If reallocation is determined feasible and is pursued, the USACE will require a non-federal sponsor or sponsors for reallocation.
For questions regarding the Wright Patman Lake Reallocation Project Draft Feasibility Report, please contact Mr. Jodie Foster, Planning Lead, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Planning & Environmental Center, Plan Formulation Section, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102, (817) 886-1679, or via email at
For questions regarding the Wright Patman Lake Reallocation Project Draft EIS, please contact Ms. Melinda Fisher, Environmental Lead, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Planning & Environmental Center, NEPA & Cultural Resources Section, 1645 S. 101st E. Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74128, (918) 669-7502, or via email at
Operational changes would be required with a reallocation of flood control storage to water supply and would produce effects on upstream and downstream flood patterns, recreational opportunities, water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat. In determining whether to reallocate storage within the reservoir and change operational regimes, the USACE must comply with requirements including but not limited to the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Clean Water Act.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 7, 2016.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela at (202) 245-7377.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2016.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: March 7, 2016.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: May 6, 2016.
This priority is:
For applicants with an expiring CAMP project, the Secretary will consider the applicant's prior experience in implementing its expiring CAMP project, based on information contained in documents previously provided to the Department, such as annual performance reports, project evaluation reports, site visit reports, and the previously approved CAMP application.
Under this competition, we also are particularly interested in applications that address the following invitational priorities.
These priorities are:
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Providing students with increased access to rigorous and engaging coursework in STEM.
(b) Increasing the number and proportion of students prepared for postsecondary or graduate study and careers in STEM, with a specific focus on an increase in the number and proportion of students so prepared who are from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM careers, including minorities, individuals with disabilities, and women.
Applicants could, for example, propose providing students with increased access to coursework in STEM through such activities as mentoring, counseling, and tutoring in ways that motivate participants to pursue postsecondary education in the areas of STEM. Similarly, applicants could propose increasing the number and proportion of students prepared for postsecondary or graduate study and careers in STEM through activities such as referrals to STEM-oriented work-based learning experiences, exposure to academic programs and careers in STEM-related fields, and providing support services. These could include services to improve participants' academic skills and knowledge so that they may pursue studies and careers in STEM-related fields.
Applications that propose to engage faith-based and community organizations in the delivery of services under this program.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) 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.
2.
3.
1.
To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 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, references, and captions. However, you may single space all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs presented in the application narrative count toward the page limit.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch) throughout the entire application package.
• 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 25-page limit for the project narrative does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract. However, the page limit does apply to all of the project narrative.
Appendices must be limited to 20 pages and must include the following: Resumes, if applicable, and job descriptions of key personnel. Job descriptions must include duties and minimum qualifications. Items in the appendices will only be used by the program office; the items will not be read by reviewers.
3.
Applications Available: January 7, 2016.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: March 7, 2016.
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 will 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
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: May 6, 2016.
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
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 CAMP, CFDA number 84.149A, 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 CAMP 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 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 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
• 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: Emily Bank, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E338, Washington, DC 20202-6135. FAX: (202) 205-0089.
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 84.149A, 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 84.149A, 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.
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.
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.
Applicants must propose annual targets for these measures in their applications. The national target for GPRA measure 1 for FY 2016 is that 86 percent of CAMP participants will complete the first academic year of their postsecondary program. The national target for GPRA measure 2 for FY 2016 is that 85 percent of CAMP participants continue their postsecondary education after completing the first academic year of college. The national targets for subsequent years may be adjusted based on additional baseline data. The panel readers will score related selection criteria on the basis of how well an applicant addresses these GPRA measures. Therefore, applicants will want to consider how to demonstrate a sound capacity to provide reliable data on the GPRA measures, including the project's annual performance targets for addressing the GPRA performance measures, as is required by the Office of Management and Budget approved annual performance report that is included in the application package. All grantees will be required to submit, as part of their annual performance report, information with respect to these GPRA performance measures.
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).
If you use a TDD or TYY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2016.
This priority is:
For applicants with an expiring HEP project, the Secretary will consider the applicant's prior experience in implementing its expiring HEP project, based on information contained in documents previously provided to the Department, such as annual performance reports, project evaluation reports, site visit reports, and the previously approved HEP application.
Under this competition, we also are particularly interested in applications that address the following invitational priorities.
These priorities are:
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Providing students with increased access to rigorous and engaging coursework in STEM.
(b) Increasing the opportunities for high-quality preparation of, or professional development for, teachers or other educators of STEM subjects.
Applicants could, for example, consider activities to better prepare program participants to transition into postsecondary education, such as preparing students to pass the sections of college entrance examinations in STEM-related subjects or providing mentoring, counseling, and tutoring services designed to motivate participants to pursue postsecondary education in STEM-related fields. Similarly, for the professional development priority area, applicants could propose activities to increase the opportunities for high-quality professional development for HSE instructors of STEM-related subjects that include, for example, training in intensive science teaching techniques presented by a professionally credentialed expert in science education.
Applications that propose to engage faith-based and community organizations in the delivery of services under this program.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) 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.
2.
3.
1.
To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 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, references, and captions. However, you may single space all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs presented in the application narrative count toward the page limit.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch) throughout the entire application package.
• 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 25-page limit for the project narrative does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract. However, the page limit does apply to all of the project narrative.
Appendices must be limited to 20 pages and must include the following: Resumes, if applicable, and job descriptions of key personnel. Job descriptions must include duties and minimum qualifications. Items in the appendices will only be used by the program office; the items will not be read by reviewers.
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 will 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
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: May 6, 2016.
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.
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 HEP, CFDA number 84.141A, 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 HEP 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 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
• 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: Emily Bank, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E338, Washington, DC 20202-6135. FAX: (202) 205-0089.
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 84.141A, 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 84.141A, 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.
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.
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.
Applicants must propose annual targets for these measures in their applications. The national target for GPRA measure 1 for FY 2016 is that 69 percent of HEP program participants exit the program having received an HSE credential. The national target for GPRA measure 2 for FY 2016 is that 80 percent of HEP HSE diploma recipients will enter postsecondary education or training programs, upgraded employment, or the military. The national targets for subsequent years may be adjusted based on additional baseline data. The panel readers will score related selection criteria on the basis of how well an applicant addresses these GPRA measures. Therefore, applicants will want to consider how to demonstrate a sound capacity to provide reliable data on the GPRA measures, including the project's annual performance targets for addressing the GPRA performance measures, as is required by the Office of Management and Budget approved annual performance report that is included in the application package. All grantees will be required to submit, as part of their annual performance report, information with respect to these GPRA performance measures.
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)
If you use a TDD or TYY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
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:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability for public comment.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a 45-day public comment period for the External Review Draft of the “
All comments received in the docket by February 22, 2016 will be shared with the external peer review panel for their consideration. Comments received beyond that time may be considered by EPA when it finalizes the document.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0684 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Dr. Michael Broder, Office of the Science Advisor, Mail Code 8105R, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (202) 564-3393; fax number (202) 564-2070; or email:
The current guidance document for human exposure assessment,
The draft guidelines benefit from over two decades of experience with EPA assessments conducted by Agency programs under their respective authorities and constraints, and from input from external panels, including the National Academy of Sciences and EPA's Science Advisory Board. This draft document builds on topics covered in the 1992 exposure guidelines including planning and scoping for an assessment, data acquisition and use, modeling, and considerations of uncertainty in exposure assessment. It also includes new material on planning and conducting an observational human exposure measurement study and considerations of lifestages and sensitive populations in exposure assessments. These draft guidelines present the most current science used in EPA exposure assessments and incorporates information about the Agency's current policies.
Farm Credit Administration.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).
Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090. Submit attendance requests via email to
Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.
Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. Please send an email to
*Session Closed-Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552b(c)(2).
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. 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 January 29, 2016.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Lisa De Marchi Sleigh, (202-326-2535), Bureau of Competition, 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 a 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 agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for December 30, 2015), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before January 29, 2016. Write “Rangers Renal Holding, LP; US Renal Care, Inc.; Dialysis Parent, LLC; and Dialysis HoldCo, LLC.,—Consent Agreement; File No. 151-0215” 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 “Rangers Renal Holding, LP; US Renal Care, Inc.; Dialysis Parent, LLC; and Dialysis HoldCo, LLC.,—Consent Agreement; File No. 151-0215” 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 (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Consent Agreement”) from Rangers Renal Holdings LP (“Rangers Holdings”), the parent of US Renal Care, Inc. (“USRC”), and Dialysis Holdco, LLC (“Dialysis Holdco”), the parent of Dialysis Newco, Inc. d/b/a DSI Renal (“DSI”). The purpose of the Consent Agreement is to remedy the anticompetitive effects resulting from Rangers Holdings' purchase of Dialysis Parent, LLC (“Dialysis Parent”). Dialysis Parent is the parent of Dialysis Holdco. Under the terms of the Consent Agreement, USRC is required to divest DSI's three dialysis clinics in Laredo, Texas.
The Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for 30 days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement, modify it, or make final the Decision and Order (“Order”).
Pursuant to an agreement dated August 21, 2015, Rangers Holdings proposes to acquire all of the outstanding membership interest in Dialysis Holdco from Dialysis Parent in a transaction valued at approximately $640 million. Dialysis Parent is currently the sole owner of all membership interests in Dialysis Holdco. The Commission 's Complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by substantially lessening competition in one market—Laredo, Texas—for the provision of outpatient dialysis services.
Privately owned and headquartered in Plano, Texas, USRC is the third-largest provider of outpatient dialysis services in the United States. USRC operates more than 200 outpatient dialysis clinics in 20 states and treats approximately 15,500 patients.
DSI, headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, is a privately held company and the sixth-largest provider of outpatient dialysis services in the United States. DSI operates 100 dialysis centers, providing dialysis services to approximately 7,500 patients in 22 states.
Outpatient dialysis services is the relevant product market in which to assess the effects of the proposed transaction. For patients suffering from End Stage Renal Disease (“ESRD”), dialysis treatments are a life-sustaining therapy that replaces the function of the kidneys by removing toxins and excess fluid from the blood. Most ESRD patients receive dialysis treatment three times per week in sessions lasting between three and five hours. Kidney transplantation is the only alternative to dialysis for ESRD patients. However, the wait-time for donor kidneys—during which ESRD patients must receive dialysis treatments—can exceed five years. Additionally, many ESRD patients are not viable transplant candidates. As a result, ESRD patients have no alternative to dialysis treatments. ESRD patients who are not hospitalized must obtain dialysis treatments from outpatient dialysis clinics.
Dialysis services are provided in local geographic markets limited by the distance ESRD patients are able to travel to receive treatments. ESRD patients are often very ill and suffer from multiple health problems, making travel further than 30 miles or 30 minutes very difficult. As a result, competition among dialysis clinics occurs at a local level, corresponding to metropolitan areas or subsets thereof. The exact contours of each market vary depending on traffic patterns, local geography, and the patient's proximity to the nearest center.
Entry into the outpatient dialysis services markets identified in the Commission's Complaint is not likely to occur in a timely manner at a level sufficient to deter or counteract the likely anticompetitive effects of the proposed transaction. The primary barrier to entry is the difficulty associated with locating nephrologists with established patient pools to serve as medical directors. By law, each dialysis clinic must have a nephrologist medical director. As a practical matter, medical directors are also essential to the success of a clinic because they are the primary source of referrals. In the relevant geographic market, there are few unencumbered nephrologists and few outside nephrologists willing to move into the area. These obstacles make entry in the affected market more challenging and less likely to avert the anticompetitive effects of the transaction.
The geographic market identified in the Complaint is highly concentrated. The proposed acquisition would cause the number of providers to drop from three to two in this market leaving USRC with a dominant position in Laredo, Texas. The post-acquisition HHI for this market exceeds 4000, and the change in HHI is more than 1200. The evidence shows that health insurance companies and other private payers who pay for dialysis services used by their members benefit from direct competition between USRC and DSI when negotiating rates charged by dialysis providers in this market. The high post-acquisition concentration level, along with the elimination of USRC's and DSI's head-to-head competition suggest the proposed combination likely would result in higher prices for outpatient dialysis services in this geographic market. In addition, the evidence shows that market participants compete for patients on a number of quality measures—including quality of facilities, wait times, operating hours, and location. Given the high post-acquisition concentration level, the proposed combination would likely result in diminished service and quality for patients in Laredo, Texas.
The Consent Agreement remedies the proposed acquisition's anticompetitive effects in the Laredo, Texas market by requiring USRC to divest DSI's three outpatient dialysis clinics to Satellite Healthcare Inc. (“Satellite”).
As part of these divestitures, USRC is required to obtain the agreement of the medical director affiliated with the divested clinics to continue providing physician services after the transfer of ownership to the buyer. Similarly, the Consent Agreement requires USRC to obtain the consent of all lessors necessary to assign the leases for the real property associated with the divested clinics to the buyer. These provisions ensure that the buyer will have the assets necessary to operate the divested clinics in a competitive manner.
The Consent Agreement contains several additional provisions designed to ensure that the divestitures are successful. First, the Consent Agreement provides the buyer with the opportunity to interview and hire employees affiliated with the divested clinics and prevents USRC from offering these employees incentives to decline the buyer's offer of employment. This will ensure that the buyer has access to patient care and supervisory staff who are familiar with the clinics' patients and the local physicians. Second, the Consent Agreement prevents USRC from contracting with the medical director affiliated with the divested clinics for three years. This provides the buyer with sufficient time to build goodwill and a working relationship with its medical director before USRC can attempt to capitalize on DSI's prior relationship in soliciting his services. Third, to ensure continuity of patient care and records as the buyer implements its quality care, billing, and supply systems, the Consent Agreement requires USRC to provide transition services for a period up to 12 months. Firewalls and confidentiality agreements have been established to ensure that competitively sensitive information is not exchanged. Fourth, the Consent Agreement requires USRC to provide the buyer with a license to use USRC's policies, procedures, and medical protocols, as well as the option to obtain USRC's medical protocols, which will further enhance the buyer's ability to continue to care for patients in the clinics that will be divested. The Consent Agreement requires USRC to provide notice to the Commission prior to any acquisitions of dialysis clinics in the market addressed by the Consent Agreement in order to ensure that subsequent acquisitions do not adversely impact competition in that market or undermine the remedial goals of the proposed order. Finally, the Consent Agreement allows the Commission to appoint a monitor to oversee USRC's compliance with the Consent Agreement.
The Commission is satisfied that Satellite is a qualified acquirer of the divested assets. Satellite is currently a significant operator of dialysis clinics, operating over 70 outpatient and home dialysis clinics since 1973.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the Consent Agreement, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Decision and Order or the Order to Maintain Assets, or to modify their terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent orders—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before January 27, 2016.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Jennifer Milici (202-326-2912), Bureau of Competition, 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 orders 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 agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for December 28, 2015), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before January 27, 2016. Write “ArcLight Energy Partners Fund VI, L.P., Consent Agreement, File No. 151-0149” 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 “ArcLight Energy Partners Fund VI, L.P., Consent Agreement, File No. 151-0149” 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 (“Commission”) has accepted from ArcLight Energy Partners Fund VI, L.P. (“ArcLight”), subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects resulting from ArcLight's proposed acquisition of Gulf Oil Limited Partnership (“Gulf”) and related assets from Cumberland Farms, Inc.
The Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for 30 days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement, modify it, or make the Order final.
ArcLight invests in energy infrastructure. Through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Pyramid LLC, ArcLight owns and operates twelve light petroleum product (“LPP”) terminals in Pennsylvania. ArcLight uses its terminals to meet its own marketing needs and offers terminaling services to third parties for a fee.
Cumberland, one of the largest convenience store operators in the country, operates a petroleum marketing, terminaling, and distribution business through its Gulf subsidiary. Gulf owns and operates twelve LPP terminals in the Northeast, including seven in Pennsylvania. Gulf also uses its terminals to meet its own marketing needs and provides terminaling services to third parties for a fee.
Pursuant to two contingent Purchase and Sale Agreements dated May 15, 2015, ArcLight proposes to acquire Gulf, and certain other assets, from Cumberland (the “Acquisition”). The Commission's Complaint alleges that the Acquisition, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by substantially lessening competition for gasoline and distillate terminaling services in relevant geographic markets within Pennsylvania.
Terminals are critical to the efficient distribution of LPPs. Transporting bulk quantities of LPPs via pipeline or marine vessel is significantly less expensive on a per gallon basis than trucking LPPs the same distance. Terminals serve as the delivery points on pipeline and marine routes and are capable of receiving bulk quantities of LPPs, holding LPPs in storage tanks, and loading smaller quantities of LPPs onto tanker trucks for local delivery. Tanker trucks pick up product from the terminals through specialized loading systems and transport LPPs to retail locations and end-use customers. Terminaling services include the off-loading, temporary storage, and dispensing of LPPs into trucks.
The Commission's Complaint alleges that the relevant product markets within which to analyze the Acquisition are gasoline terminaling services and distillates terminaling services. Gasoline terminaling service customers can only use terminals that meet gasoline-specific environmental regulations. A terminal must have specialized equipment, including vapor recovery units and tanks with internal floating roofs, to offer gasoline terminaling services. While distillate terminaling customers may be able to use gasoline terminals, the reverse is not possible due to the more stringent regulatory requirements for the storage and handling of gasoline.
The Commission's Complaint alleges three relevant geographic markets in Pennsylvania in which to assess the competitive effects of the Acquisition: (1) Altoona, which includes terminals in Altoona; (2) Scranton, which includes terminals in Pittston Township and Edwardsville; and (3) Harrisburg, which includes terminals in Northumberland, Williamsport, Mechanicsburg, and Highspire.
The Acquisition would substantially increase concentration in relevant markets that are already highly concentrated. In the Altoona market, ArcLight and Gulf are the only firms that offer gasoline terminaling services, and two of three firms that offer distillate terminaling services. ArcLight and Gulf are two of only three firms that offer gasoline or distillate terminaling services in the Scranton market. In the Harrisburg market, ArcLight and Gulf are two of three firms that offer gasoline terminaling services, and two of four firms that offer distillate terminaling services.
The Acquisition would substantially lessen competition for terminaling services in the relevant markets by enabling ArcLight to exercise market power unilaterally, and enhancing the likelihood of collusion or coordinated interaction among the few remaining terminaling services providers. Post-acquisition, ArcLight would be the sole firm offering gasoline terminaling services in Altoona. It would own most of the LPP storage capacity in each of the other relevant markets and would be able to raise terminaling service fees or reduce access to terminaling services unilaterally. The remaining firms have limited ability to accommodate additional throughput customers and would likely be unable to constrain ArcLight from exercising market power. To the extent the remaining firms could offer some limited constraint on ArcLight's ability to exercise market power unilaterally, they are unlikely to do so because the transaction would increase their incentives to coordinate tacitly with ArcLight.
Entry into the relevant markets would not be timely, likely, or sufficient to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects arising from the Acquisition. Barriers to entry are significant and include high sunk costs associated with the construction of a new terminal, and the substantial amount of time required to design, build, and permit a new facility. ArcLight has significant excess capacity in the relevant markets, and this capacity would also discourage new entry.
The Order resolves the competitive concerns raised by the Acquisition by requiring that ArcLight divest Gulf's terminals in Altoona, Pittston Township, Mechanicsburg, and Williamsport. The Order requires ArcLight to divest to Arc Logistics, or another acquirer approved by the Commission, the four terminals and all associated assets, as well as enter into certain transitional arrangements necessary for the acquirer to become established and compete successfully in the relevant markets. ArcLight is required to divest the terminals within 20 days of closing the Acquisition.
Arc Logistics is a publicly-traded logistics service provider principally engaged in the terminaling, storage, throughput, and transloading of crude oil and LPPs. The company owns twelve LPP terminals in several states, not including Pennsylvania. To ensure that the acquirer has sufficient throughput at the divested terminals while it negotiates contracts with new terminal customers, the Order requires ArcLight to enter a transitional throughput agreement with Arc Logistics, whereby ArcLight commits to throughput certain volumes at Arc Logistics' terminals for two years. The Order also requires ArcLight to supply Arc Logistics with renewable fuels, at Arc Logistics' request, for a period of five years, an option that will help Arc Logistics attract throughput customers. Finally, the Order requires ArcLight to let any
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the Consent Agreement, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the Order or to modify its terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”).
Notice.
The FTC plans to conduct a qualitative survey of consumers who recently purchased an automobile and financed that purchase through a dealer. Through a survey research firm, the FTC seeks to interview consumers about the consumer's experience in selecting, purchasing, and financing an automobile from a dealer. The interviews also will involve reviewing the consumer's documentation from the purchase and financing. This is the first of two notices required under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) in which the FTC seeks public comments on its proposed consumer research in connection with Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) review of, and clearance for, the collection of information discussed herein.
Comments must be received on or before March 7, 2016.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Carole Reynolds, 202-326-3230, or Teresa Kosmidis, 202-326-3216, Division of Financial Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Mail Stop-CC-10232, Washington, DC 20580.
For many consumers, aside from housing costs, a car purchase is their most expensive financial transaction. With prices averaging more than $33,500 for a new vehicle and $20,000 for a used vehicle from a dealer, most consumers seek to finance the purchase of a new or used car.
As the nation's consumer protection agency, the Commission is committed to protecting consumers in connection with auto-related transactions. The Commission has broad authority to protect consumers in this area. The agency enforces the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive practices by a wide variety of entities, including automobile dealers.
In recent years, the FTC has been particularly active in enforcement and other initiatives related to automobile transactions. Since 2011, the FTC has brought more than twenty-five cases protecting consumers in this area, including a sweep of ten actions against automobile dealers for deceptive advertising, and a coordinated federal-state effort that yielded more than two hundred automobile actions for fraud, deception, and other illegal practices.
The FTC's proposed survey will explore in more detail the experience of actual consumers who recently purchased and financed an automobile from a dealer.
The FTC plans to conduct a qualitative survey of consumer experiences in recent purchases of automobiles that were financed through automobile dealers. The survey will involve an initial sample of five in-person consumer interviews to test the survey questionnaire, followed by in-person interviews of 40 consumers, with the option to interview 40 more, if the FTC deems the additional interviews likely to be helpful. For the initial 40 consumers, the FTC seeks to interview approximately 20 consumers who have “prime” credit scores and approximately 20 consumers who have “subprime” credit scores in order to learn about the consumer's experience with purchasing and financing in these two market segments.
The survey research firm will conduct interviews lasting approximately 90 minutes with each consumer. The interviews will focus on, among other things:
• The consumer's experience in shopping for and choosing an automobile;
• the process of agreeing to a price for the automobile;
• the process of trading in the consumer's old automobile, if applicable;
• the consumer's experience in obtaining financing;
• additional products or services the dealer may have offered;
• contacts between the consumer and the dealer after the purchase; and
• the consumer's overall perception of the purchase experience.
The interviews will conclude by reviewing the consumer's documentation and exploring the consumer's understanding of that documentation. Participation in the survey will be voluntary. While the results will not be generalizable to the U.S. population, the Commission believes that they can provide useful insights into consumer understanding of the automobile purchasing and financing process at the dealership.
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” includes agency requests or requirements to submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). The FTC seeks clearance for the automobile buyer study and the FTC's associated PRA burden estimates that follow.
A.
B.
C.
More specifically, staff estimates that the contractor's preliminary review of consumers to ascertain consumers for the survey would involve no more than 170 consumers (at most twice the maximum number of consumers—85 —that would be involved in the survey).
The estimated hours are a total of the time for preliminary review, the pretest, the interviews, and obtaining credit scores. The preliminary review will include topics such as whether the consumer has recently purchased a car and has participated in a survey in the past year, as well as the consumer's self-identified race and origin. This review, done by phone, would require no more than 15 minutes per consumer, for 42.5 hours (170 respondents × 15 minutes). Staff also estimates that at most, each of the 170 consumers would take approximately 30 minutes to locate or ascertain whether they have their
Staff will pretest the questionnaire and interview materials with approximately five respondents to ensure that questions are easily understood. Staff estimates that each interview (including the documentation review) will take approximately 90 minutes, plus 60 minutes travel time to and from the survey. Allowing for an extra ten minutes for questions unique to the pretest, the pretest will total approximately 13.33 hours (5 respondents × 160 minutes each).
Once the pretest is completed, the initial 40 interviews will take 100 hours (60 hours for the interviews plus 40 hours travel time to and from the survey). If an additional 40 consumers are interviewed, that will require an additional 100 hours, respectively. Thus, for the interviews of 80 consumers, staff estimates that 200 hours will be required (80 × 150 minutes each).
Staff further estimates that approximately 75%, or 64, of the 85 survey participants (pretest and interviews) do not already have their credit score and will thus procure it through the contractor or services that provide this information. Staff estimates that 10 minutes per consumer will be required for this purpose, for a total of 10.67 hours (64 respondents × 10 minutes each).
Thus, the FTC's survey will require 351.5 hours (127.5 hours for preliminary review + 13.33 hours for pretest + 200 hours for interviews + 10.67 hours for obtaining credit scores). The monetary cost per respondent should be negligible. The contractor will assist those consumers who seek the contractor's assistance in obtaining their credit score if the consumers do not have it. Alternatively, costs to obtain their credit score through other means should be nil or negligible. Increasingly, Web sites offer free credit scores; additionally, credit score information often is available to consumers through credit sources they already have, such as credit card or other credit statements, in some cases.
The survey research firm may pay respondents a reasonable and customary financial incentive for participation. Participation will not require start up, capital, or labor expenditures by interview subjects.
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party.
Pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC invites comments on:
(1) Whether the reporting requirements are necessary, including whether the information will be practically useful; (2) the accuracy of our burden estimates, including whether the methodology and assumptions used are valid; (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.
Additionally, the FTC seeks comments on the proposed survey methodology and specific issues or questions that should be included in the interview process.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before March 7, 2016. Write “Auto Buyer Consumer Survey, Project No. P154800” 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 obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential,” as provided 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 prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Auto Buyer Consumer Survey, Project No. P154800” 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 J), 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 J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
By direction of the Commission.
Office of Refugee Resettlement, ACF, HHS.
Announcement of the award of a single-source program expansion supplement to Heartland Human Care Services (HHCS) to support expanded services to foreign trafficking victims, potential trafficking victims, and certain family members.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) announces the award of a single-source program expansion supplement grant to Heartland Human Care Services in Chicago, Illinois, for a total of $144,822.
The supplemental funding will ensure that clients' essential needs, such as housing, transportation, communication, food, and medical care, will be met.
The period of support under these supplements is September 30, 2014 through September 29, 2015.
Maggie Wynne, Director, Division of Anti-Trafficking in Persons, Office of Refugee Resettlement, 901 D Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, Telephone (202) 401-4664. Email:
The National Human Trafficking Victim Assistance Program (NHTVAP) provides funding for comprehensive case management services to victims of trafficking and certain family members on a per capita basis. The NHTVAP grantees help clients gain access to housing, employability services, mental health screening and therapy, medical care, and some legal services. During FY 2015, a grantee, Heartland Human Care Services (HHCS), served more clients than it had planned for in its budget for the year. Without the additional funding, HHCS would have to make significant cuts in services to current clients and limit the enrollment of new clients. With the supplemental funding, HHCS will be able to ensure that all of the clients' essential needs will be met.
Section 469B(e)(3) of the Social Security Act (Pub. L. 104-193) requires that each state receiving an AV grant award shall monitor, evaluate and report on such programs in accordance with regulations. Additionally, the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, states that there is an application requirement for Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs (93.597). The application process will assist OCSE in complying with this requirement and will reflect a greater emphasis on program efficiency, coordination of services, and increased attention to family safety.
The application will require states to submit a program plan, indicating how they anticipate spending their funds within the program statue and regulations. The applications will cover three fiscal years and any changes made to the plan during the three year period will require a notification of change to OCSE.
OCSE will review the applications to ensure that planned services meet the requirements laid out in Section 469B(e)(3) of the Social Security Act (Pub. L. 104-193). This review will include monitoring of program compliance and the safe delivery of services. In addition to monitoring, the report will also assist in OCSE's ability to provide technical assistance to states that would like assistance.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following public workshop entitled “Streamlining Regulations for Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) for Hearing Aids.” The topic to be discussed is the appropriate level of good manufacturing practices (GMPs) regulation to ensure the safety and effectiveness of air-conduction hearing aid devices.
The public workshop will be held on April 21, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Submit either electronic or written comments on the public workshop by May 19, 2016.
The public workshop will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
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.”
•
Srinivas Nandkumar, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Bldg. 66, Rm. 2436, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-6480, FAX: 301-847-8126,
Over 35 million people in the United States have some degree of hearing loss. However, it is estimated that only 20 percent of individuals who could benefit from hearing aids are using them. There are several well-recognized reasons or “barriers” causing underuse of hearing aids, including the high cost of these devices, the stigma associated with hearing aid use, and the fact that hearing aids do not restore hearing to normal the way that eyeglasses can correct visual problems. On October 26, 2015, the President's Council on Science and Technology (PCAST) issued a report in recognition of the substantial national public health problem of barriers to accessibility and affordability of hearing aids for Americans with “normal, age-related, progressive, mild-to-moderate hearing loss” and the underuse of these devices in the older American population. The report includes a number of recommendations regarding possible modifications to Federal Regulation of hearing aids by FDA and the Federal Trade Commission, which PCAST believes could “enhance the pace of innovation and level of competition, leading to rapid decrease in cost and improvement in capability, convenience, and use of assistive hearing devices” (
In response to PCAST's recommendations outlined in this document, the workshop will discuss the current GMPs that are required under the QSReg and gather suggestions for an alternative model for quality verification. Invited speakers will discuss how the current regulations may be unsuitable for air-conduction hearing aids and may hinder innovation, reduce competition, and lead to increased cost and reduced use of these devices by Americans with age-related hearing loss. Additionally, the potential exemption of hearing aids from the QSReg, through use of alternative standards developed in collaboration with key stakeholders and standards development organizations, and recognized by FDA and recordkeeping to ensure product quality, will be discussed.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Susan Monahan, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Office of Communication and Education, 301-796-5661,
To register for the public workshop, please visit FDA's Medical Devices News & Events—Workshops & Conferences calendar at
FDA is holding this public workshop to obtain information on the appropriate level of good manufacturing practices for hearing aids. In order to permit the widest possible opportunity to obtain public comment, FDA is soliciting either electronic or written comments on all aspects of the public workshop topics. The deadline for submitting comments related to this public workshop is May 19, 2016.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; reopening of the comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is reopening the comment period for the draft guidance entitled “Regulatory Requirements for Hearing Aid Devices and Personal Sound Amplification Products.” A notice of availability requesting comments on the draft guidance document appeared in the Federal Register of November 7, 2013. The Agency is reopening the comment period to receive updated comments and any new information.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment of this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by May 6, 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
An electronic copy of the draft guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the
Eric Mann, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2438, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6460.
In the Federal Register of November 7, 2013 (78 FR 66940), FDA published a notice of availability with a 90-day comment period to request comments on the draft guidance entitled “Regulatory Requirements for Hearing Aid Devices and Personal Sound Amplification Products.”
Since issuance of the November 7, 2013, draft guidance entitled “Regulatory Requirements for Hearing Aid Devices and Personal Sound Amplification Products,” FDA has become aware of other efforts by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and
FDA is reopening the comment period for 120 days. The Agency believes that a 120-day extension allows adequate time for interested parties to submit comments without significantly delaying finalizing the draft guidance on these important issues.
FDA is soliciting comments on the availability, accessibility, and use of hearing aids and PSAPs for consumers with hearing impairment. Further, FDA requests interested parties to comment on the key issues and recommendations identified in the PCAST reporting, including: (1) The degree to which current FDA regulatory requirements may be acting as a barrier to hearing aid accessibility, affordability, and use of hearing aids; (2) the appropriateness of creating a “basic” category of hearing aids for consumers with “bilateral, gradual onset, mild-to-moderate age-related hearing loss” with appropriate labeling for over-the-counter sale; and (3) whether the benefits of expanded, over-the-counter access to hearing aids in this age-related hearing loss population outweigh the risks of forgoing the condition for sale (that the consumer may waive) that requires a medical evaluation to rule out treatable, potentially progressive causes of hearing loss.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807 subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of final determination.
This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) has issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain intermodal containers. Based upon the facts presented, CBP has concluded that the country of origin of the intermodal containers is the country of origin of the imported panels for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
The final determination was issued on December 23, 2015. A copy of the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this final determination within February 8, 2016.
Teresa M. Frazier, Valuation and Special Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade (202) 325-0139.
Notice is hereby given that on December 23, 2015, pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain intermodal containers, which may be offered to the U.S. Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. This final determination, HQ H267876, was issued under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-18). In the final determination, CBP concluded that the processing in the United States does not result in a substantial transformation. Therefore, the country of origin of the intermodal containers is the country of origin of the imported panels for purposes of U.S. Government procurement for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that a notice of final determination shall be published in the
This is in response to your correspondence of July 29, 2015, supplemented by your letter of September 30, 2015, requesting a final determination on behalf of Sea Box, Inc. (“Sea Box”), pursuant to subpart B of part 177, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP” Regulations (19 CFR 177.21
This final determination concerns the country of origin of Sea Box shipping containers. We note that Sea Box, Inc. is a
You state that the subject containers are made in various sizes: 20 foot long; Bicon; Tricon and Quadcon. The 20′ shipping container is considered to be a standard unit in the shipping industry.
You state that a 20 foot ISO
19′ 10.5″ in length with a tolerance of +0, −1/4 of an inch; 8.0′ in width with a tolerance of +0, −3/16 of an inch; 8.0′ in height with a tolerance of +0, −3/16 of an inch. The internal dimensions are: 19′4 11/64″ (L); 7′8 17/32″ (W); 7′4 3/16″ (H). The 20 foot container is comprised of corrugated steel sides and roofing which gives it a favorable strength to weight ratio; two sets of forklift “pockets” that permit forklifts to lift and move laden or unladen containers; wooden flooring tested to withstand 16,000 lbs. per square foot (144 square inches); 24 top and bottom wall tie down steel lashing rings each having a capacity of 4,000 lbs.; and two vents. The twenty foot containers weigh 5,000 lbs. each and can accommodate a payload of 47,910 lbs.
You state that a Bicon is a shipping container that is approximately half the size of a 20 foot container and manufactured to precise dimensions such that when two are linked together by connecting couplers, they form a 20 foot equivalent unit (“TEU”) and may be transported as if the combination were a single 20 foot container. The ISO-compliant Bicon container has the following external dimensions: 9′9 3/4″ in length with a tolerance of +0, −3/16 of an inch; 8.0′ in width with a tolerance of +0, −3/16 of an inch; 8.0′ in height with a tolerance of +0, −3/16 of an inch. The internal dimensions are: 9′3 1/2″ (L); 7′8 17/32″ (W); 7′4 3/16″ (H). You state that the Bicon has similar features to the 20 foot unit, except that the Bicon only has one set of forklift “pockets” and uses several tie down steel lashings. You state that the Bicon has a weight of 2,900 lbs. and can accommodate a payload of 23,555 lbs., and has a storage capacity of 527 cubic feet.
You state that a Tricon is approximately one-third the size of a 20 foot container and that it is manufactured to precise dimensions such that when three Tricons are linked together by connecting couplers, a TEU is formed and may be transported as if the combination was a single 20 foot container. The ISO-compliant Tricon container has the following external dimensions: 6′5 9/16″ in length with a tolerance of +0, −3/16 of an inch; 8.0′ in width with a tolerance of +0, −3/16 of an inch; 8.0′ in height with a tolerance of +0, −3/16 of an inch. The internal dimensions are: 6′3 25/64″ (L); 7′7 22/32″ (W); 7′5 9/64″ (H). You state that the Tricon has similar features to the 20 foot unit and the Bicon, except that instead of a wooden flooring, the Tricon has heavy duty steel flooring. You state the Tricon has a weight of 2,600 lbs. each laden and may accommodate a payload of 13,300 lbs., and has a storage capacity of 356 cubic feet.
You state that a Quadcon is approximately one-fourth the size of a twenty foot container and that it is manufactured to precise dimension such that when four Quadcons are linked together by connecting couplers, a TEU is formed and may be transported as if the combination were a single 20 foot container. The ISO-compliant Quadcon container has the following external dimensions: 4′9 7/16″ in length with a tolerance of +0, −3/16 of an inch; 8.0′ in width with a tolerance of +0, −3/16 of an inch; 8.0′ in height with a tolerance of +0, −3/16 of an inch. The internal dimensions are: 4′7 3/4″ (L); 7′6 9/16″ (W); 7′5″ (H). You state that the Quadcon has similar features to the Tricon, except that it also has swing doors on both sides for convenient access. You state the Quadcon has a weight of 2,300 lbs. each unladed and may accommodate a payload of 8,900 lbs., and has a storage capacity of 260 cubic feet.
In your submission, you described Sea Box's manufacturing facilities to include a separate, free-standing, testing center with equipment capable of testing containers for ISO compliance to 1.8 times the maximum required load (which is equivalent to 846,720 lbs.). You advise that the manufacturing process requires the manipulation of large components to form a structurally sound container to its precise size in accordance with ISO specifications, allowing containers to be capable of transport by rail, truck and ship with uniform fitting on preexisting truck and rail support structures. You provided a list of the 43 components of the containers. We note that that the front wall panel, side wall panel, right-hand door, right-hand door gasket, left-hand door gasket, roof panel, floor panel, lashing rings, front corner post tie downs, and corner blocks, all originate from one foreign country. Connecting couplers, hand assembly restraint bar, tie-back, rivets nuts and bolts, hinges, amongst other components, originate from the U.S. You indicate that by using grinders and/or cutting wheels, the components are ground to bare steel where welding is required. Specifically, the floor sections, wall section, front and rear-end sections, and roof section are ground to bare steel where welding is required. Next, the components are loaded into the Jig and once the dimensional tolerances are verified and adjusted, the components are tacked and stich-welded together, vertical seams are welded, and all outside components are fully welded. If required, roof corner plates and floor gussets are welded, and door tieback hooks are welded. Next, pilot holes are drilled into the floor and steel cross-members and doors are secured. The container is then moved to the blast booth for painting with primer and a top coat. You indicate that the particular steel that is used in the roof and sides is not available in the U.S.
You state that the containers must be capable of being stacked up to nine units high, with the base of a stack strong enough to support 470,400 static lbs. above a container (8 containers x 58,800 lbs. per container). You also state the container must be able to support a dynamic load taking into account a vessel's motion in conformity with the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). You also advise that the containers must be CSC
Whether the intermodal containers are considered to be products of the United States for U.S. Government procurement purposes.
Pursuant to Subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR 177.21
In rendering final determinations for purposes of U.S. Government procurement, CBP applies the provisions of Subpart B of Part 177 consistent with the Federal Procurement Regulations.
An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case of an article which consists in whole or in part of materials from another country or instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so transformed.
In order to determine whether a substantial transformation occurs when components of various origins are assembled into completed products, CBP considers the totality of the circumstances and makes such determinations on a case-by-case basis. The country of origin of the item's components,
Substantial transformation occurs when an article emerges from a process with a new name, character or use different from that possessed by the article prior to processing. A substantial transformation will not result from a minor manufacturing or combining process that leaves the identity of the article intact.
In
In
It is your position that the country of origin of the intermodal containers is the U.S. because your client's operations are “plainly complex and meaningful” in that every component loses its identity and becomes an integral part of the shipping container. You state that this process is more complex than processes found to effect a substantial transformation in certain past rulings, and you cite to Headquarters Ruling Letters (HQ) H248850, dated November 7, 2014; H259326, dated April 13, 2015; H192144, dated October 22, 2014; and H251592, dated June 24, 2014. You also state that the large scale industrial process that is employed to manipulate components weighing hundreds to thousands of pounds to manufacture a shipping container to narrow tolerances is surely a “complex operation requiring skilled workers.” You also advise that this “large scale industrial” manufacturing process requires skilled labor, special equipment, facilities, labor resources and in-process quality assurance techniques and precision subject to ISO specifications and rigorous CSC certification. You argue that the strict dimensional tolerances that are required for safety and to assure compliance with ISO and CSC standards for use in international commerce makes the process precise, expensive, complex and meaningful. We reviewed your submission and note that although the large scale assembly requires skilled labor for safety and compliance with certain ISO and CSC certification requirements, this does not result in a substantial transformation of the non-U.S. components. Rather, the container assembly is distinguishable from the aforementioned cases where CBP found substantial transformation.
In H259326, the exoskeleton assistive walking device assembly consisted of hundreds of parts sourced from U.S. manufacturers, with the exception of three parts, all of which were assembled in the U.S. In H259326, CBP found the inclusion of the two of the three non-U.S. parts (a heat diffuser/shield, foot straps/binding) would be permanently attached to the finished devices such that they would “lose their separate identities and be subsumed into the finished exoskeleton,” thereby resulting in a substantial transformation when used in the manufacturer of the finished exoskeleton. However, in this case, the foreign-origin front, side and roof and floor panels are not subsumed into a complex device.
Further, there is not complex assembly of the container like in H248850, dated November 7, 2014, in which CBP found a substantial transformation involving U.S. patented operations which consisted of bending of the HEX; brazing of various connections; and installing a control box which contained U.S. developed software. With the intermodal containers, although skilled workers are required to ensure safety and accuracy in accordance with ISO and CSC requirements, the grinding, welding and assembly processes essentially do not change the predetermined use of the panels, all of which originate from one foreign country. In regard to H251592, CBP determined that certain AIO cartridges assembled with toner powder from Japan, a cleaning unit from Thailand, and a development unit from China, were substantially transformed because the toner powder was found to be the most critical element of the AIO cartridge. As in
Based upon the specific facts of this case, we find that the imported panels are not substantially transformed as a result of the described operations performed in the United States. The country of origin of the intermodal containers for purposes of U.S. Government procurement is imparted by the roof, side and floor panels, which are of non-U.S. origin.
Notice of this final determination will be given in the
The Office of Public Engagement, DHS.
Notice of partially closed Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Homeland Security Advisory Council (“Council”) will meet in person on January 21, 2016. Members of the public may participate in person. The meeting will be partially closed to the public.
The Council will meet Thursday, January 21, 2016, from 10:10 a.m. to 4:35 p.m. EST. The meeting will be open to the public from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST. Please note the meeting
The meeting will be held at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (“Wilson Center”), located at 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. All visitors will be processed through the lobby of the Wilson Center. Written public comments prior to the meeting must be received by 5:00 p.m. EST on Monday, January 18, 2016, and must be identified by Docket No. DHS-2015-0069. Written public comments after the meeting must be identified by Docket No. DHS-2015-0069 and may be submitted by
•
•
•
•
Mike Miron at
Notice of this meeting is given under Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463 (5 U.S.C. Appendix), which requires each FACA committee meeting to be open to the public.
The Council provides organizationally independent, strategic, timely, specific, actionable advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on matters related to homeland security. The Council is comprised of leaders of local law enforcement, first responders, state and local government, the private sector, and academia.
The Council will meet in an open session between 1:30 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. EST. The Council will swear in new members, receive reports from the CBP Integrity Advisory Panel and the DHS Grant Review Task Force, and receive verbal progress reports from the Cybersecurity Subcommittee and the Countering Violent Extremism Subcommittee.
The Council will meet in a closed session from 10:10 a.m. to 1:25 p.m. and 3:05 p.m. to 4:35 p.m. EST to receive sensitive operational counterterrorism information from senior officials and information on current threats and security measures from the Cybersecurity Subcommittee and Countering Violent Extremism Subcommittee leadership.
The Council will receive closed session briefings from senior officials and both the Cybersecurity Subcommittee and Countering Violent Extremism Subcommittees. The Council will receive operational counterterrorism updates on the current threat environment and security measures associated with countering such threats. The session is closed under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(7)(E) because disclosure of that information could reveal investigative techniques and procedures not generally available to the public, allowing terrorists and those with interests against the United States to circumvent the law and thwart the Department's strategic initiatives. These briefings will concern matters sensitive to homeland security within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(7)(E)and 552b(c)(9)(B). The session is closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) because disclosure of these techniques and procedures could frustrate the successful implementation of protective measures designed to keep our country safe.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 7, 2016.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0013 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0045. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
(3)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Deputy Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibit activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before February 8, 2016. We must receive requests for marine mammal permit public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the
•
•
When submitting comments, please indicate the name of the applicant and the PRT# you are commenting on. We will post all comments on
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358-2104 (telephone); (703) 358-2281 (fax);
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a renewal of their permit to obtain through interstate commerce fibroblast cell culture samples from bonobos (
The applicant requests the renewal of the permit to export/re-export and re-import non-living museum specimens and non-living herbarium specimens of endangered and threatened species previously accessioned into the applicant's collection for scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from common chimpanzee (
The applicant requests authorization to rescue, rehabilitate, and release northern sea otters (
Concurrent with publishing this notice in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to offer 39 parcels of public land totaling 608.57 acres in the Las Vegas Valley by competitive sale, at not less than the appraised fair market values (FMV). The BLM is proposing to offer the parcels for sale pursuant to the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (SNPLMA), as amended. The sale will be subject to the applicable provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and BLM land sale regulations.
Interested parties may submit written comments regarding the sale until February 22, 2016. The sale by sealed bid and oral public auction will occur on April 26, 2016, at Clark County Government Center, Clark County Commission Chambers, 500 South Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, Nevada, NV 89155 at 10 a.m., Pacific Time (PT). The FMV for the parcels will be available 30 days prior to the sale. The BLM will start accepting sealed bids beginning April 12, 2016. Sealed bids must be received by the BLM, Las Vegas Field Office (LVFO) no later than 4:30 p.m. PT on April 21, 2016.
The BLM will open sealed bids on the day of the sale just prior to the oral bidding.
Mail written comments and submit sealed bids to the BLM LVFO, Assistant Field Manager, 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130.
Manuela Johnson by email:
The BLM proposes to offer 39 parcels of public land in the southwest and southeast areas of the Las Vegas Valley. The subject public lands are legally described as:
A sales matrix is available on the BLM Web site at
This competitive sale is in conformance with the BLM Las Vegas Resource Management Plan and decision LD-1, approved by Record of Decision on October 5, 1998, and complies with Section 203 of FLPMA. The Las Vegas Valley Disposal Boundary Environmental Impact Statement analyzed the sale parcels and the Record of Decision on December 23, 2004 approved the suitability for the sale of these parcels. A parcel-specific Determination of National Environmental Policy Act Adequacy document numbered DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2015-0120-DNA was prepared in connection with this Notice of Realty Action.
Submit comments on this sale Notice to the address in the
Sealed-bid envelopes must be clearly marked on the lower front left corner with the parcel number and name of the sale, for example: “N-XXXXX, 39-parcel SNPLMA Spring Sale 2016.” Sealed bids must include an amount not less than 20 percent of the total bid amount and the $10,000 bid guarantee noted above by certified check, postal money order, bank draft, or cashier's check made payable to the “Department of the Interior-Bureau of Land Management.” The bid guarantee and bid deposit may be combined into one form of deposit; the bidder must specify the amounts of the bid deposit and the bid guarantee. The BLM will not accept personal or company checks. The sealed-bid envelope
All funds submitted with unsuccessful bids will be returned to the bidders or their authorized representative upon presentation of an acceptable photo identification at the BLM-LVFO or by certified mail. The apparent high bidder may choose to apply the bid guarantee towards the required deposit. Failure to submit the deposit following the close of the sale under 43 CFR 2711.3-1(d) will result in forfeiture of the bid guarantee. If the successful bidder offers to purchase more than one parcel and fails to submit the 20 percent bid deposit resulting in default on any single parcel following the sale, the BLM will retain the $10,000 bid guarantee, and may cancel the sale of all the parcels to that bidder. If a high bidder is unable to consummate the transaction for any reason, the BLM may offer the parcel to the second highest bidder for their bid. If there are no acceptable bids, a parcel may remain available for sale at a future date in accordance with competitive sale procedures without further legal notice.
Federal law requires that bidders must be: (1) A citizen of the United States 18 years of age or older; (2) A corporation subject to the laws of any State or of the United States; (3) A State, State instrumentality, or political subdivision authorized to hold property; or (4) An entity legally capable of conveying and holding lands or
Evidence of United States citizenship is a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers. Failure to submit the above requested documents to the BLM within 30 days from receipt of the high-bidder letter will result in cancellation of the sale and forfeiture of the bid deposit. Citizenship documents and Articles of Incorporation (as applicable) must be provided to the BLM-LVFO for each sale. The successful bidder is allowed 180 days from the date of the sale to submit the remainder of the full purchase price.
According to SNPLMA as amended, Public Law 105-263 section 4(c), lands identified within the Las Vegas Valley Disposal Boundary are withdrawn from location and entry, under the mining laws and from operation under the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws until such time as the Secretary terminates the withdrawal or the lands are patented. Any subsequent applications will not be accepted, will not be considered as filed, and will be returned to the applicant. The segregative effect of this Notice terminates upon issuance of a patent or other document of conveyance to such lands.
The parcels are subject to limitations prescribed by law and regulation, and certain encumbrances in favor of third parties. Prior to patent issuance, a holder of any right-of-way (ROW) within the sale parcels will have the opportunity to amend the ROW for conversion to a new term, including perpetuity, if applicable, or conversion to an easement. The BLM will notify valid existing ROW holders of record of their ability to convert their compliant ROWs to perpetual ROWs or easement. In accordance with Federal regulations at 43 CFR 2807.15, once notified, each valid holder may apply for the conversion of their current authorization.
The following numbered terms and conditions will appear on the conveyance documents for the sale parcels:
1. All mineral deposits in the lands so patented, and to it, or persons authorized by it, the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and regulations to be established by the Secretary of the Interior are reserved to the United States, together with all necessary access and exit rights;
2. A right-of-way is reserved for ditches and canals constructed by authority of the United States under the Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945);
3. The parcels are subject to valid existing rights;
4. The parcels are subject to reservations for road, public utilities and flood control purposes, both existing and proposed, in accordance with the local governing entities' transportation plans; and
5. An appropriate indemnification clause protecting the United States from claims arising out of the lessee's/patentee's use, occupancy, or occupations on the leased/patented lands.
Pursuant to the requirements established by Section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9620(h) (CERCLA), as amended, notice is hereby given that the lands have been examined and no evidence was found to indicate that any hazardous substances have been stored for 1 year or more, nor had any hazardous substances been disposed of or released on the subject property.
No warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, is given by the United States as to the title, whether or to what extent the land may be developed, its physical condition, future uses, or any other circumstance or condition. The conveyance of a parcel will not be on a contingency basis. However, to the extent required by law, the parcel is subject to the requirements of Section 120(h) of the CERCLA.
Unless the BLM authorized officer approved other satisfactory arrangements in advance, conveyance of title will be through escrow. Designation of the escrow agent will be through mutual agreement between the BLM and the prospective patentee, and costs of escrow will be borne by the prospective patentee.
The BLM-LVFO must receive the request for escrow instructions prior to 30 days before the prospective patentee's scheduled closing date. There are no exceptions.
All name changes and supporting documentation must be received at the BLM-LVFO 30 days from the date on the high-bidder letter by 4:30 p.m. PT. There are no exceptions. To submit a name change, the apparent high bidder must submit the name change in writing on the Certificate of Eligibility form to the BLM-LVFO.
The remainder of the full bid price for the parcel must be received no later than 4:30 p.m. PT, within 180 days following the day of the sale. Payment must be submitted in the form of a certified check, postal money order, bank draft, cashier's check, or made available by electronic fund transfer made payable in U.S. dollars to the “Department of the Interior—Bureau of Land Management” to the BLM-LVFO. The BLM will not accept personal or company checks.
Arrangements for electronic fund transfer to the BLM for payment of the balance due must be made a minimum of 2 weeks prior to the payment date. Failure to pay the full bid price prior to the expiration of the 180th day will disqualify the high bidder and cause the entire 20 percent bid deposit to be forfeited to the BLM. Forfeiture of the 20 percent bid deposit is in accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1(d). No exceptions will be made. The BLM cannot accept the remainder of the bid price after the 180th day of the sale date.
The BLM will not sign any documents related to 1031 Exchange transactions. The timing for completion of such an exchange is the bidder's responsibility. The BLM cannot be a party to any 1031 Exchange.
In accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1(f), within 30 days the BLM may accept or reject any or all offers to purchase, or withdraw any parcel of land or interest therein from sale if the BLM authorized officer determines consummation of the sale would be inconsistent with any law, or for other reasons as may be provided by applicable law or regulations. No contractual or other rights against the United States may accrue until the BLM officially accepts
The parcel may be subject to land use applications received prior to publication of this Notice if processing the application would have no adverse effect on the marketability of title, or the FMV of the parcel. Information concerning the sale, encumbrances of record, appraisals, reservations, procedures and conditions, CERCLA, and other environmental documents that may appear in the BLM public files for the proposed sale parcels are available for review during business hours, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. PT, Monday through Friday, at the BLM-LVFO, except during Federal holidays.
In order to determine the FMV through appraisal, certain extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions may have been made concerning the attributes and limitations of the lands and potential effects of local regulations and policies on potential future land uses. Through publication of this Notice, the BLM advises that these assumptions may not be endorsed or approved by units of local government.
It is the buyer's responsibility to be aware of all applicable Federal, State, and local government laws, regulations and policies that may affect the subject lands, including any required dedication of lands for public uses. It is also the buyer's responsibility to be aware of existing or prospective uses of nearby properties. When conveyed out of Federal ownership, the lands will be subject to any applicable laws, regulations, and policies of the applicable local government for proposed future uses. It is the responsibility of the purchaser to be aware through due diligence of those laws, regulations, and policies, and to seek any required local approvals for future uses. Buyers should make themselves aware of any Federal or State law or regulation that may affect the future use of the property. Any land lacking access from a public road or highway will be conveyed as such, and future access acquisition will be the responsibility of the buyer.
Any comments regarding the proposed sale will be reviewed by the BLM Nevada State Director or other authorized official of the Department of the Interior, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action in response to such comments. In the absence of any comments, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.
43 CFR 2711.1-2.
Bureau of Land Management Alaska, North Slope Science Initiative, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of the Interior, North Slope Science Initiative (NSSI)—Science Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) will meet as indicated below.
The meeting will be held February 8-10, 2016, in Fairbanks, Alaska. The meeting will be held in the International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 930 Koyukuk Drive, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775. The meeting will begin on Monday, February 8, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., in Room 417. The meeting will continue in Room 501 on Tuesday and Wednesday, February 9-10, beginning at 8:30 a.m. each day. There will be an opportunity for public comment from 4:30 to 5:00 p.m. on Monday, February 8. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.
Denny Lassuy, Acting Director, North Slope Science Initiative, Bureau of Land Management, 222 W. Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513, (907) 271-4212 or email
The NSSI STAP provides advice and recommendations to the NSSI Oversight Group regarding priority information needs for management decisions across the North Slope of Alaska. These priority information needs may include recommendations on inventory, monitoring, and research activities that contribute to informed resource management decisions. This meeting will include introductions of new appointees, review of STAP procedures, continued review of emerging issues, and application of North Slope Scenarios implications to inventory, monitoring and research priorities. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, transportation, or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the NSSI Director. The public may present written comments to the STAP through the NSSI Acting Director. 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. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management proposes to extend the duration of Public Land Order (PLO) No. 7254, as corrected, for an additional 20-year term. PLO No. 7254 withdrew 19,687 acres of public mineral estate in Toole and Liberty Counties, Montana, from location and entry under the United States mining law to provide enhanced protection of the unique resources within the Sweet Grass Hills Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and surrounding areas. The lands have been and will remain open to the mineral and geothermal leasing laws and mineral materials disposal
Comments must be received by April 6, 2016. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will hold a public meeting in connection with the proposed withdrawal extension on February 10, 2016.
Comments should be sent to the BLM Havre Field Manager, 3990 HWY 2 West, Havre, Montana 59501.
Micah Lee, BLM Havre Field Office, 406-262-2851, or Debby Sorg, BLM Montana/Dakotas State Office, 406-896-5045. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact either of the above individuals. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individuals. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The withdrawal created by PLO No. 7254 (62 FR 17633 (1997)), as corrected (62 FR 22964 (1997)), will expire April 9, 2017, unless it is extended, and is incorporated herein by reference. The BLM has filed an application requesting that the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management extend PLO No. 7254 for an additional 20-year term. PLO No. 7254 withdrew 19,687 acres of public mineral estate in Toole and Liberty Counties, Montana, from location and entry under the United States mining law, subject to valid existing rights. This notice amends the land description as the result of a resurvey due to the cancellation of mineral survey 3418. The public mineral estate withdrawn by PLO No. 7254 is now described as follows:
The areas described aggregate 19,686.09 acres of public mineral estate in Toole and Liberty Counties.
The purpose of the proposed extension is to continue to protect the unique resources within the Sweet Grass Hills ACEC and surrounding areas.
The use of a right-of-way, interagency agreement, or cooperative agreement would not provide adequate protection.
There are no suitable alternative sites available where the withdrawal would facilitate the protection necessary.
No water rights will be needed to fulfill the purpose of the requested withdrawal extension.
All persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed withdrawal extension may present their views in writing to the BLM Havre Field Manager by April 6, 2016, at the address above.
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the Havre
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Notice is hereby given that a public meeting in connection with the proposed withdrawal extension will be held at the Chester Senior Center, 618 E. Adams Ave., Chester, Montana 59522 on February 10, 2016 from 3 to 5 p.m. The BLM will publish a notice of the time and place in at least one newspaper of general circulation no less than 30 days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
This application will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2310.4.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the address in this notice by February 8, 2016.
Anna Pardo, Museum Program Manager/NAGPRA Coordinator, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, and in the physical custody of the Arizona State Museum, Tucson, AZ. The human remains were removed from areas around Pyramid Lake, Washoe County, NV.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada.
In 1959, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from a site located on the Northwest corner of Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV, by F.A. Riddell (State of California Division of Beaches and Parks) and H. Norcross, and donated to the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology. At the request of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, these human remains were transferred to the Arizona State Museum in 2013 for documentation and temporary custody. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At an unknown date prior to 1955, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a small cave in “Paul Bunyan's Corral” located on the east side of Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. They were donated by M. Wheat to the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology in 1955. At the request of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, these human remains were transferred to the Arizona State Museum in 2013 for documentation and temporary custody. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At an unknown date prior to 1922, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the east side of Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV, by Peterson Pancho and donated to the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology in 1922. At the request of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, these human remains were transferred to the Arizona State Museum in 2013 for documentation and temporary custody. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At an unknown date prior to 1923, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from south of Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV, by Peterson Pancho and donated to the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology in 1923. At the request of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, these human remains were transferred to the Arizona State Museum in 2013 for documentation and temporary custody. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on physical characteristics including cranial and dental morphology.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 11
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (15), the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the tribal land of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Anna Pardo, Museum Program Manager/NAGPRA Coordinator, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for notifying the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The American Museum of Natural History has completed an inventory of human remains in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the American Museum of Natural History. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the American Museum of Natural History at the address in this notice by February 8, 2016.
Nell Murphy, Director of Cultural Resources, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, telephone (212) 769-5837, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY. The human remains were removed from San Juan County, WA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the American Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation and the Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation (hereinafter referred to as “The Tribes”).
In an unknown year, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Jack Allen property, Waldron Island, San Juan County, WA. The human remains were collected by an unknown individual from the surface after ploughing. The human remains were identified as adult of indeterminate gender. The American Museum of Natural History accessioned these human remains as a gift from Miss June Wetherell Frame, in 1959. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the American Museum of Natural History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on the presence of cranial deformation.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission, the Court of Federal Claims, Treaties, Acts of Congress, and Executive Orders the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Nell Murphy, Director of Cultural Resources, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, NY, NY 10024, 212-769-5837, email
The American Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Peabody Museum of Natural History has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Peabody Museum of Natural History. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Peabody Museum of Natural History at the address in this notice by February 8, 2016.
Professor David Skelly, Director, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 208118, New Haven, CT 06520-8118, telephone (203) 432-3752.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, New Haven, CT. The human remains were removed from the Blue Earth Village Site (14-Po-0024), near Manhattan, Pottawatomie County, KS.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Peabody Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma, the Delaware Tribe of Indians, the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma, and the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana.
In 1868, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a cemetery at the Blue Earth Village Site (14-Po-0024), near Manhattan, Pottawatomie County, KS. The human remains were removed by Benjamin Mudge (the first state geologist of Kansas) who, in the same year, donated the human remains to the Peabody Museum of Natural History. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
According to historical documentation and archaeological evidence, the Kaw (Kanza) people lived at the Blue Earth Village from approximately 1757 to 1825. In 1846, the Kaw moved to Council Grove, Kansas and in 1873, the group was forcibly removed to Kay County, OK where they reside today as the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma.
Officials of the Peabody Museum of Natural History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Professor David Skelly, Director, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 208118, New Haven, CT 06520-8118, telephone (203) 432-3752 by February 8, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma may proceed.
The Peabody Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma, the Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma, the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma, and the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana, and that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Department of Anthropology at Indiana University has completed an inventory of human remains in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Indiana University NAGPRA Office. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Indiana University NAGPRA Office at the address in this notice by February 8, 2016.
Dr. Jayne-Leigh Thomas, NAGPRA Director, Indiana University, NAGPRA Office, Student Building 318, 701 E. Kirkwood Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405, telephone (812) 856-5315, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Indiana University professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot Reservation, Washington), Nooksack Indian Tribe, Samish Indian Nation (previously listed as the Samish Indian Tribe, Washington), Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Snoqualmie Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Snoqualmie Tribe, Washington), Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington (previously listed as the Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington), Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (previously listed as the Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation of Washington), the Tulalip Tribes of Washington (previously listed as the Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington), and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”.
In July of 1941, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from a “shell mound” at an unknown location in the “Northwest Coast”. This collection was transferred to Indiana University from the University of Chicago during the 1950s. The boxes containing the collection recorded the collection as having previously been located at the University of Washington. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Notes accompanying this collection indicate that two of the individuals from this collection were excavated from a shell mound in July of 1941 by Tom Harmon. The geographic location is listed as “Northwest Coast.” The third individual from this collection is listed as having been excavated from the same shell mound in July of 1941 by Harry Smith. Extensive efforts have been made to collect information about Tom Harmon, who was a Road Commissioner in 1941; however, no further information has been found.
During the 1940s, Harry Everett Smith gifted cultural objects to the Thomas Burke Museum Memorial of Natural History and Culture (Burke Museum) at the University of Washington, including objects Smith had collected from Skagit County. Harry Smith grew up in the Anacortes area of Skagit County, Washington State, and is known to have worked with the tribal communities in Skagit and Whatcom Counties in the late 1930s and early 1940s, recording their language and songs. Between 1942 and 1944 he studied anthropology at the University of Washington, focusing on Native American tribes of the Pacific Northwest. Indiana University and the Burke Museum have concluded that by a preponderance of the evidence, `Harry Smith' who excavated the `shell mound' in 1941, and the Harry Smith who collected artifacts from Skagit County and worked with the University of Washington, are the same person. This conclusion is supported by the Burke Museum's accession records and other UW archival information.
“Shell Mounds” or shell middens are archaeological sites common along the shorelines of the Northwest Coast including the northern Puget Sound region, where Skagit and Whatcom Counties are located. The shell middens of this area are between 200 and 4000 years old; both burials and isolated human remains are commonly found in these sites.
Officials of Indiana University have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on osteological evidence and collection history.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.
• On January 22, 1855, the Point Elliot Treaty was signed by representatives from The Tribes. The Point Elliot Treaty established an agreement between the United States Government and The Tribes for lands in western Washington. The lands around Anacortes, Washington from which the Native American human remains were removed were a part of the aboriginal lands ceded by the Point Elliot Treaty.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Jayne-Leigh Thomas, NAGPRA Director, Indiana University, NAGPRA Office, Student Building 318, 701 E. Kirkwood Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405, telephone (812) 856-5315, email
Indiana University is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; correction.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, Cibola National Forest has corrected an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region at the address in this notice by February 8, 2016.
Dr. Frank E. Wozniak, NAGPRA Coordinator, Southwestern Region, USDA Forest Service, 333 Broadway Boulevard Southeast, Albuquerque, NM 87102, telephone (505) 842-3238, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the USDA Forest Service, Cibola National Forest, Albuquerque, NM. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Cibola County, NM.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
This notice corrects the minimum number of individuals and the number of associated funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
In the
Between 1977 and 1979, human remains representing 32 individuals were recovered from sites NA 21566, NA 23177 and NA 23178 during legally authorized excavations conducted by J. Richard Ambler of Northern Arizona University. No known individuals were identified. The 68 associated funerary objects include ceramic vessels, pottery sherds and chipped stone.
In the
Based on the above mentioned information, officials of the USDA Forest Service have determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(d)(1), the human remains listed above represent the physical remains of 32 individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the USDA Forest Service have also determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(d)(2), the 68 objects listed above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of a death rite or ritual.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to: Dr. Frank E. Wozniak, NAGPRA Coordinator, Southwestern Region, USDA Forest Service, 333 Broadway Boulevard Southeast, Albuquerque, NM 87102, telephone (505) 842-3238, email
The Cibola National Forest is responsible for notifying the Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; the Hopi Tribe, Arizona; and the Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Tennessee Valley Authority has completed an inventory of human remains in consultation with the appropriate federally recognized Indian tribes and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day federally recognized Indian tribes. Representatives of any federally recognized Indian tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to TVA. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the federally recognized Indian tribe stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any federally recognized Indian tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Tennessee Valley Authority at the address in this notice by February 8, 2016.
Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email
Notice is hereby given in accordance with Section 5 of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control and possession of TVA. The human remains were removed from sites 1LI14 and 1LI37, in Limestone County, Alabama.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Tennessee Valley Authority professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; Alabama Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Kialegee Tribal Town; Poarch Band of Creeks (Previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); The Chickasaw Nation; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma; Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and the Shawnee Tribe.
In the 1950s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were collected by James Cambron, a resident of Decatur, Alabama from site 1LI14, in Limestone County, AL. The human remains were identified as a female between the ages of 20-24. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 1L114, in Limestone County, AL. These human remains were located during a recent validation of the Tennessee Valley Authority NAGPRA cultural items stored at the University of Alabama. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Archaeological site 1LI14 is located on the Tennessee River across from the mouth of Flint creek in Limestone County, Alabama. It is located on the pre-inundation right descending bank of the Tennessee River within the Wheeler Wildlife Refuge. The Alabama state site form describes this site as a truncated pyramidal mound and associated shell mound or village near Decatur, Alabama. The mound is 100 ft. from the river and is 135 ft. long by 80 ft. wide at the base and 90 ft. long by 60 ft. wide at the plateau. The long axis of the mound is parallel to the river. Tennessee Valley Authority purchased the land encompassing this site on June 4, 1935. Although not subject to excavation during the construction of the Wheeler Reservoir, this site is generally believed to have Middle Woodland through Mississippian occupations.
In the 1950s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were collected by James Cambron from site 1L137 in Limestone County, AL. The human remains were identified as a 15-year-old of indeterminate gender. Lack of funerary objects makes chronology of these human remains uncertain. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Archaeological site 1LI37 is 6.8 miles northeast of 1LI14 on Beaverdam Creek near Interstate 565. It is also within the Wheeler Wildlife Refuge. It was recorded in the Alabama site file in 1978. The University of Alabama recovered one reworked Early Archaic projectile point/knife during shovel testing of the site. An anvil-stone was also recovered. Available evidence suggests this site was occupied sometime during the Archaic period. Tennessee Valley Authority purchased the land intersecting this site on November 6, 1934.
Officials of the Tennessee Valley Authority have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on their presence in prehistoric archeological contexts.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 3 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. Furthermore, Limestone County was recognized as the aboriginal lands of the Chickasaw Nation in a ratified treaty between the United States and the Chickasaw dated September 20, 1816.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1)(ii), TVA has decided to transfer control of the culturally unidentifiable human remains to the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma and the Chickasaw Nation.
Representatives of any federally recognized Indian tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email
Tennessee Valley Authority is responsible for notifying the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; Alabama Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Kialegee Tribal Town; Poarch Band of Creeks (Previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); The Chickasaw Nation; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma; Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and the Shawnee Tribe that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Department of Anthropology at Indiana University has completed an inventory of human remains in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Indiana University NAGPRA Office. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Indiana University NAGPRA Office at the address in this notice by February 8, 2016.
Dr. Jayne-Leigh Thomas, NAGPRA Director, Indiana University, NAGPRA Office, Student Building 318, 701 E. Kirkwood Avenue, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, telephone (812) 856-5315, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Department of Anthropology at Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. The human remains were removed from near Anacortes, WA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Indiana University professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Lummi Nation of the Lummi Reservation, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Nooksack Indian Tribe, Samish Indian Nation, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington, Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation, Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation of Washington, the Tulalip Tribes of Washington, and the Upper Skagit Tribe (hereafter referred to as `The Tribes'.)
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from an unknown location near Anacortes, Washington. This collection was transferred to Indiana University from the University of Chicago during the 1950s. The boxes are recorded as having been previously from the University of Washington; however efforts in collaboration with NAGPRA personnel at the University of Washington have failed to locate additional information regarding the collection's presence at the University of Washington and its subsequent transfer to the University of Chicago. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of Indiana University have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on osteological evidence and collection history.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 1 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.
• On January 22, 1855, the Point Elliot Treaty was signed by representatives from The Tribes. The Point Elliot Treaty established an agreement between the United States Government and The Tribes for lands in western Washington. The lands around Anacortes, WA, from which the Native American human remains were removed were a part of the aboriginal lands ceded by the Point Elliot Treaty.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Jayne-Leigh Thomas, NAGPRA Director, Indiana University, NAGPRA Office, Student Building 318, 701 E. Kirkwood Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405, telephone (812) 856-5315, email
Indiana University is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum (Burke Museum) and the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (State Parks) have completed an inventory of human remains and an associated funerary object, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and have determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary object and any
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary object should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Burke Museum at the address in this notice by February 8, 2016.
Peter Lape, Burke Museum, University of Washington, Box 353010, Seattle, WA 98195, telephone (206) 685-3849x2,
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary object under the control of the Burke Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. The human remains and associated funerary object were probably removed from the northern Puget Sound region, WA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary object. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Burke Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation; Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot Reservation, Washington); Nooksack Indian Tribe; Samish Indian Nation (previously listed as the Samish Indian Tribe, Washington); Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe; Snoqualmie Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Snoqualmie Tribe, Washington); Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington (previously listed as the Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington); Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation; Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (previously listed as the Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation of Washington); Tulalip Tribes of Washington (previously listed as the Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington); and Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).
Prior to 1995, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were probably removed from a shell midden in the northern Puget Sound region, WA, possibly from the 45-SK-7 archaeological site in Skagit County, WA. These human remains were identified in 1995 while completing an inventory for NAGPRA compliance. These human remains and associated funerary object were found in a box with a yellow Post-It note with “45-SK-7?” written on it. Also in the box were four human bones, one from King County and three from Siberia, identified by the catalog numbers written on them. While there is no known concrete documentation indicating the human remains were ever removed from 45-SK-7, human remains have been found in adjacent sites, and are commonly found in shell middens in the northern Puget Sound region. These human remains and funerary object are consistent with other burials from this area, therefor the Burke Museum feels these are most likely from that region. The Burke Museum is unable to make a cultural affiliation due to the lack of context and exact location information from which the burial was removed. Site 45-SK-7 is located on State Parks land. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is a lot of animal bone, shell and wood.
Officials of the Burke Museum have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on osteological evidence and museum collecting and accessioning history.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the one lot of objects described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary object and any present-day Indian tribe.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary object were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes. The Treaty of Point Elliot was signed on January 22, 1855 by representatives from The Tribes whose ceded aboriginal land includes the northern Puget Sound region.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and one associated funerary object may be to The Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary object should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Peter Lape, Burke Museum, University of Washington, Box 353010, Seattle, WA 98195, telephone (206) 685-3849x2,
The Burke Museum is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History has completed an inventory of human
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History at the address in this notice by February 8, 2016.
Dr. Pamela Endzweig, Director of Collections, Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 1224 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1224, telephone (541) 346-5120.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Eugene, OR. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Knik Arm, near Anchorage, AK.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Knik Tribal Council, Alaska.
In 1966, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Fisher-Hong Site, about a mile south of the village of Knik, on the edge of an unnamed creek draining White Lake, Alaska, during legally authorized excavations by archeologists from the University of Oregon. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Based on archeological context and skeletal morphology, the individual described above is determined to be Native American. Based on provenience, the Native American human remains are reasonably believed to be affiliated with the Knik Tribe. Historical documents, ethnographic sources, and oral history indicate that the Knik people have occupied Knik Arm since pre-contact times.
Officials of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Knik Tribe, Alaska.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Pamela Endzweig, Director of Collections, University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 1224 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1224, telephone (541) 346-5120, by February 8, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Knik Tribe, Alaska, may proceed.
The University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History is responsible for notifying the Knik Tribe, Alaska, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U. S. Department of Defense, Department of Navy has corrected an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
Susan S. Hughes, Department of the Navy, NAVFAC NW., 1101 Tautog Circle, Suite 102, Silverdale, WA 98315-1101, telephone (360) 396-0083, email
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Department of Defense. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from sites near Point Barrow in North Slope Borough, AK.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that had control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
This notice corrects the minimum number of individuals and number of associated funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
In the
Between 1951 and 1953, human remains representing, at minimum 56 individuals were removed from the sites of Birnirk, Nunavah, Nuvuk, and other locations near Point Barrow in North Slope Borough, AK
In the
The 121 associated funerary objects include: 32 wooden objects (wound plugs, dish, dart or arrow shafts, drill shaft; scoop, whale effigy, sod pick handle, seal scratcher, paddles, and other objects); 24 ivory objects (needle case, kayak paddle, harpoon heads, lance point, pins, awl, handles, and other objects); 25 bone and tooth objects (harpoon heads, bow brace, ice pick, bola weights, trap components, weapon tips or points, worked bear canines, and other objects); 11 antler objects (bird dart heads, harpoon heads, and worked antler); 7 stone objects (burin, ground stone knife, whetstone, project point, hearthstone, and other stone objects); 4 objects made from skin, fur, or baleen (2 sewn sealskins, baleen effigy, bear fur), 2 marine shells, and 16 ceramic sherds.
The U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Navy is responsible for notifying the Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Hawaii at Hilo has completed an inventory of human remains in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the University of Hawaii at Hilo. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Hawaii at Hilo at the address in this notice by February 8, 2016.
Peter R. Mills, Department of Anthropology, Social Sciences Division, 200 W. Kawili Street, Hilo, HI 96720-4091.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the University of Hawaii at Hilo, Hilo, HI. The human remains were removed from Kamā'oa Pu'u'eo, Kaū District, Hawai'i Island, HI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Hawaii at Hilo professional staff, in consultation with representatives of The Hawai'i Island Burial Council, Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Hui Malama i Nā Kūpuna o Hawai'i Nei, Aha Moku Advisory Committee, and the Hawaiian Civic Club of Ka'ū.
In the 1950s, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from the Pu'u Ali'i Sand Dune Site (site H1) in Kamau'oa Pu'u'eo ahupua'a, in the district of Ka'ū, Hawai'i Island, State of Hawai'i, under the direction of Professor William Bonk at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. These human remains were identified in bags of midden deposit in the summer of 2014, which had been stored with the other excavated material from the site at University of Hawaii at Hilo until the present time. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The Pu'u Ali'i Sand Dune site is a Native Hawaiian fishing village and cemetery dating to pre-European contact.
Officials of the University of Hawaii at Hilo have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and Aha Moku Advisory Committee (Moku o Keawe), the Hawaiian Civic Club of Ka'ū, and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Peter R. Mills, Department of Anthropology, Social Sciences Division, 200 W. Kawili Street, Hilo, HI 96720-4091, by February 8, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to Aha Moku Advisory Committee (Moku o Keawe), the Hawaiian Civic Club of
The University of Hawaii at Hilo is responsible for notifying the The Hawai'i Island Burial Council, Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Aha Moku Advisory Committee, and the Hawaiian Civic Club of Ka'ū that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Shiloh Museum of Ozark History has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Shiloh Museum of Ozark History. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Shiloh Museum of Ozark History at the address in this notice by February 8, 2016.
Carolyn Reno, Shiloh Museum of Ozark History 118 W. Johnson Avenue, Springdale, AR 72764, telephone (479) 750-8165, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Shiloh Museum of Ozark History, Springdale, AR. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from a rock shelter on the Graham farm near Butler Ford, Benton County, AR, in 1923.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Shiloh Museum of Ozark History professional staff in consultation with representatives of The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).
In 1923, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from a rock shelter on the Graham farm near Butler Ford, Benton County, AR. The human remains were purchased by the Shiloh Museum as part of the William Guy Howard Collection of Native American and pre-historic materials in 1966. One set of human remains consists of a skull, femur, and sternum (cataloged as S-66-1-116-1 through 3). The skull of a dog (cataloged as S-66-1-116-4) is associated with the human remains. Another set of human remains consists of a skull and two femurs (cataloged as S-66-1-490 1 through 3). There is no lineal descendent or culturally affiliated contemporary Indian tribe that can be determined. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is the skull of a dog.
Officials of the Shiloh Museum of Ozark History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on determination of burial in a rock shelter.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of, at minimum, two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the dog skull described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains (S-66-1-116) at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(15), the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary object were removed is the tribal land of The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Carolyn Reno, Shiloh Museum of Ozark History, 118 W. Johnson Avenue, Springdale, AR 72764, telephone (479) 750-8165, email
The Shiloh Museum of Ozark History is responsible for notifying The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe) that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
History Colorado has completed an inventory of human remains in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to History Colorado. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to History Colorado at the address in this notice by February 8, 2016.
Sheila Goff, History Colorado, 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203, telephone (303) 866-4531, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of History Colorado, Denver, CO. The human remains were removed from San Miguel Island, Channel Islands in Santa Barbara County, CA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by History Colorado professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.
In 1913, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from San Miguel Island, Channel Islands, in Santa Barbara County, CA. Museum documentation does not list a specific site from which the human remains were removed. They were anonymously donated to the museum in 1930. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Osteological analysis conducted at the Metropolitan State University Human Identification Laboratory concludes that the remains are of an adult female of Native American ancestry. Archaeological evidence and oral history indicate San Miguel Island is traditional territory of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California. Historical and archaeological findings support the continuous occupation of the island by the Chumash dating back several thousand years, and their relocation to the mainland to Spanish missions by 19th century. In 1855, the Santa Ynez Reservation was created for the Chumash and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash was federally recognized in 1901.
Officials of History Colorado have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Sheila Goff, History Colorado, 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203, (303) 866-4531, email
History Colorado is responsible for notifying the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, White River National Forest, has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organization. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to White River National Forest. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of the human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to White River National Forest at the address in this notice by February 8, 2016.
Mr. Scott Fitzwilliams, The White River National Forest, 900 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601, telephone (970) 945-2521.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the control of the White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs, CO, and in the custody of the Anasazi Heritage Center, Dolores, CO.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the White River National Forest professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona; the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah; the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah; the Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico. Hereafter all tribes listed above are referred to as “The Consulted and Invited Tribes.”
In 1998, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were delivered by a private citizen to the White River National Forest office in Glenwood Springs, CO. The private citizen did not leave personal information but did indicate that the human remains may have originated from southeastern Utah. The human remains consisted of two largely intact crania, and one mandible, likely associated with one of the intact skulls. A separate plastic bag containing a soil matrix (presumably from the site(s) of discovery), three disassociated teeth, and one human bone fragment was also found in the box. It is unknown if the bone fragment(s) and the dissociated teeth were part of the two human skulls although both crania and the single mandible were missing teeth. A cursory anatomical examination revealed the human remains were Native American, one female and one male, both of adult age. The colorations of the individual crania, along with associated soils, suggested that they did not originate from the same site of discovery or excavation. No craniometric examinations were made of the human remains and no destructive (
Officials of the White River National Forest have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on archeological context.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of, at minimum, two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission, the lands from which the Native American human remains were likely removed from one the aboriginal lands of The Consulted and Invited Tribes.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe of the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Mr. Scott Fitzwilliams, Forest Supervisor, White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601, telephone (970) 945-3200, by February 8, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah may proceed.
White River National Forest is responsible for notifying The Consulted and Invited Tribes that his notice has published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The State Historical Society of North Dakota has completed an inventory of human remains, and in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the State Historical Society of North Dakota. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the State Historical Society of North Dakota at the address in this notice by February 8, 2016.
Wendi Murray, State Historical Society of North Dakota, 612 East Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58505, telephone (701) 328-3506, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the State Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismarck, ND. The human remains were removed from Camp Grafton, Ramsey County, ND.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the State Historical Society of North Dakota professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Crow Tribe of Montana; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota.
In 2003, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual, were removed from site 32RY147 on state land at Camp Grafton in Ramsey County, ND. The human remains (a toe bone) were recovered during a testing project undertaken by the Department of Anthropology, University of North Dakota for the North Dakota Army National Guard. The site, described in the final report as an artifact scatter, is located in the north-central portion of Camp Grafton North, Ramsey County, ND, on top of a densely forested hill. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
No artifacts, burial mounds, or funerary structures suggesting the presence of a burial at or near the location were reported to exist at the site. The presence of ceramics and the recovery of a Besant-like projectile point fragment at the site suggest that it was probably occupied during the Woodland or Early Plains Village period (500 B.C.-A.D. 1300).
Officials of the State Historical Society of North Dakota have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remain described in this notice is Native American based on the context of its recovery. They were recovered from a prehistoric Native American site, which also generated ceramic, lithic, and other artifacts consistent with prehistoric Native American occupation.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota, and the Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota and the Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota, and the Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Wendi Murray, State Historical Society of North Dakota, 612 East Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58505, telephone (701) 328-3506, email
The State Historical Society of North Dakota is responsible for notifying the the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota, and the Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Peabody Museum of Natural History has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remain and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of the human remain and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Peabody Museum of Natural History. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remain and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of the human remain and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Peabody Museum of Natural History at the address in this notice by February 8, 2016.
Professor David Skelly, Director, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 208118, New Haven, CT 06520-8118, telephone (203) 432-3752.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, CT. The human remain and associated funerary objects were removed from Pine Island, Marshall County, AL.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Peabody Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas; the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Oklahoma; the Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma; the Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma; the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina; the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma; the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Oklahoma; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Prior to 1915, human remains representing, at minimum, one adult individual were removed from Pine Island in Marshall County, AL by John H. Gunter and donated to the Peabody Museum of Natural History. No known individuals were identified. The 82 associated funerary objects are one ceramic vessel fragment, parts of two flint-lock muskets, two lead balls, 65 brass tinklers, one lot of blue and white glass trade beads, two brass bells (variety Circarch), four ramrod thimbles, two metal springs, and three textile fragments.
Historical and archeological documentation has identified the early inhabitants of the Guntersville Basin as the Koasati (as called by the English) or Kaskinampo (as called by the French), with the Cherokee moving into the region later in the 18th century. Archeological investigations on Pine Island in the late 1800s and again in the 1930s identified both proto-historic and historic occupations. The historic McKee Island Phase occupation dates to approximately A.D. 1650 to 1715. After 1715, it is believed the Koasati abandoned the island and moved south to the Coosa-Tallapoosa River junction. The associated funerary objects are consistent with the earlier historic McKee Island phase occupation of Pine Island by the Koasati. Historical, linguistic, and tribal evidence indicates that descendants of the Koasati are members of four federally recognized tribes: The Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Oklahoma, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma.
Officials of the Peabody Museum of Natural History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 82 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remain and associated funerary objects and the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas, the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Oklahoma, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of the human remain and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Professor David Skelly, Director, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 208118, New Haven, CT 06520-8118, telephone (203) 432-3752, by February 8, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remain and associated funerary objects to the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas, the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Oklahoma, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation may proceed.
The Peabody Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas; the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Oklahoma; the Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma; the Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma; the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina; the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma; the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Oklahoma; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
International Trade Commission.
Call for submissions.
The United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) is requesting submissions to form parts of a planned Centennial History of the United States International Trade Commission.
Submissions will be accepted if:
1. The author provides written notice to the Secretary to the Commission by January 29, 2016, of the intent to file a submission.
2. The author files the submission by April 29, 2016.
Documents responsive to this notice should be filed with Lisa R. Barton, Secretary, preferably by electronic mail to
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary, telephone (202) 205-2000, United States International Trade Commission. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at (202) 205-1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission was created by Public Law 64-271 enacted on September 8, 1916. The Commission is planning to commemorate the 100th anniversary of its founding by publishing a Centennial History of the agency.
The Commission's strategic plan describes the agency in the following terms: “For decades, the Commission, an independent, nonpartisan agency, has fulfilled its mandate to provide Congress and the President with objective, thorough, and succinct analysis on the most critical trade issues of the day.” The Commission seeks to place the agency and its mandate for
The book is planned to include the following chapters:
This table of contents is preliminary and has not yet been finalized. The Commission is willing to entertain suggestions from prospective authors for modifications to the table.
The Commission is seeking authors to prepare chapters for the book (other than the Conclusion). Each submission for a chapter on one of the Commission's functions would need to address the following: Why Congress felt the need for legislation on the subject of the chapter (
Once filed, each submission will undergo an extensive review process. The Commission reserves the right to edit each submission for form, style, and content. The agency provides no guarantee that a submission will be published in the Centennial History. Publication of a chapter will not result in monetary remuneration.
The Commission is considering convening a conference at which submissions for the Centennial History would be discussed. All authors whose contributions have been accepted for the book would have an opportunity to participate in the conference. In addition, authors whose contributions do not become part of the book may be permitted to participate. Their contributions would also be considered for inclusion in the proceedings of the conference.
As stated above, a prospective author must provide written notice to the Commission by January 29, 2016, of the intent to file a submission. This intent to file must include the following information:
Once the Commission has received the notices, each author will receive a packet including: A tentative offer to publish, a voluntary services agreement, and guidelines on editorial styles and compliance with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
By order of the Commission.
Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notice of cancellation of public hearing.
The following public hearing on proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure has been canceled: Bankruptcy Rules Hearing on January 29, 2016, in Pasadena, California. Announcements for this meeting were previously published in 80 FR 48120, 80 FR 50324 and 80 FR 51604.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of Permit Applications Received under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at title 45 part 671 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by February 8, 2016. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Division of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address or
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
Ari S. Friedlaender, Ph.D., Marine Mammal Institute, Oregon State University, Hatfield Marine Science Center, 2030 SE Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 97365
Waste Permit. The applicant will conduct research around the Antarctic Peninsula to determine the ecological role of baleen whales. Recently developed sensor tags will be used to collect data on the underwater movement and behavior of the whales. Over time, the applicant will be able to determine how changes in the whales' behavior correspond to changes in sea ice, krill, and other critical aspects of the Antarctic marine ecosystem that are at risk from rapidly changing climates. The applicant will also collect skin and blubber biopsy samples to gain a better understanding of the identity, population structure, and health of the whales. The applicant will collaborate with Antarctic tour operators that will provide platforms to the applicant's research team in order to gather data during time periods that are undersampled. The applicant is seeking a waste permit to cover any accidental releases that may occur if the biopsy darts and/or tags are lost.
Multi-sensor, suction cup tags. The tags contain electronic sensors that are contained in a syntactic foam housing (400g in weight). The tags also contain a VHF radio beacon that aids in tag retrieval via standard radio tracking equipment. The tags remain on whales for up to 24 hours via silicon suction cups. When they are shed, they float and are retrieved using radio telemetry tracking tools. The applicant's research team remains in visual or radio contact with the tag continuously while it is deployed and until it is recovered. While tag failure is rare, if the VHF transmitter fails the tag would likely remain floating until it became beach-cast. In the applicant's experience, VHF failure occurs rarely, less than 1% of all deployments. A lost tag would constitute waste in the form of 300 grams of syntactic foam, 100 grams of electronics and 20 grams of silicon suction cups. The research teams are comprised of experienced researchers with many years of field time. By employing personnel such as this, the applicant minimizes the risk of generating waste and losing any equipment due to human error.
Biopsy darts. Biopsy sampling is done with a crossbow firing a floating dart, made of aluminum and carbon fiber, that bounces off the whale's body after extracting a tiny plug of tissue. The biopsy tips are a 40 mm stainless steel barrel. The bolts also contain a 5x2cm foam float that is used to aid in dart retrieval. The bolts are highly visible and remain at the surface for retrieval. The applicant will only collect samples when weather and light conditions are good and offer the best chance at retrieving the bolt. The applicant's research team generally takes samples at a range of 10-30 meters that allows them to maintain visual contact with the bolt when it is in the water. During biopsy sampling, the team has an observer whose job is to maintain visual contact with the bolt until retrieval. The applicant's research team has collected over 500 biopsy samples in Antarctica on various projects and has only failed to retrieve two bolts to date. When bolts are lost, it is likely that they would remain floating for some time unless the foam breaks in which case the bolt would likely sink quickly.
Antarctic Peninsula
February 23, 2016 to April 30, 2020
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, Division of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Or by email:
On October 6, 2015 the National Science Foundation published a notice in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 173 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-50 and CP2016-65 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 173 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 7, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-50 and CP2016-65 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth R. Moeller is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 7, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
March 3, 2016, at 11 a.m.; June 2, 2016, at 11 a.m.; September 1, 2016, at 11: a.m.; December 1, 2016, at 11 a.m.
Commission hearing room, 901 New York Avenue NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268-0001.
The Postal Regulatory Commission will hold public meetings to discuss the agenda items outlined below. Part of the meetings will be open to the public as well as audiocast, and the audiocast may be accessed via the Commission's Web site at
The agenda for the Commission's March 3, 2016 meeting, June 2, 2016 meeting, September 1, 2016 meeting, and December 1, 2016 meeting include the items identified below.
1. Report from the Office of Public Affairs and Government Relations.
2. Report from the Office of General Counsel.
3. Report from the Office of Accountability and Compliance.
4. Commissioners Vote to designate new Vice-Chairman of the Commission pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 502(e). (December 1, 2016 Meeting only)
5. Discussion of pending litigation.
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, Postal Regulatory Commission, 901 New York Avenue NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268-0001, at 202-789-6820 (for agenda-related inquiries) and Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary of the Commission, at 202-789-6800 or
By direction of the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 172 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-49 and CP2016-64 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 172 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 7, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-49 and CP2016-64 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Curtis E. Kidd is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 7, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of First-Class Package Service Contract 40 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-51 and CP2016-66 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed First-Class Package Service Contract 40 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than January 7, 2016. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2016-51 and CP2016-66 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Curtis E. Kidd is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than January 7, 2016.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing this proposed rule change with respect to amendments of the By-Laws (the “By-Laws”) of its parent corporation, Nasdaq, Inc. (“Nasdaq” or the “Company”), to revise the requirements regarding Director classifications. This Amendment No. 1 to SR-NASDAQ-2015-160 amends and replaces the original filing in its entirety. The proposed amendments will be implemented on a date designated by the Company following approval by the Commission. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Company is proposing amendments to certain provisions of its By-Laws that relate to Director
Currently, the Company's By-Laws require that all of the Company's Directors be classified as: (i) Industry Directors;
The Company proposes to amend Section 4.3 of the By-Laws to state that the Board may, rather than shall, include one, but no more than two, Issuer Directors. With this change, the Company intends to give itself the option, but not the requirement, to include one or two Issuer Directors on its Board. Issuer Directors bring to the Board the perspective of an officer or employee of companies listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market. While the Company highly values the views of its listed companies, it does not believe that it is strictly necessary to have an Issuer Director on its own Board to represent those views. Within the overall governance structure of the Company and its subsidiaries, issues relating to listed companies are generally the province of NASDAQ and its Board of Directors, rather than the Company and its Board of Directors. The Company is a holding company for over 100 subsidiaries that provide both regulated and unregulated products and services across the globe, while NASDAQ is the Company subsidiary that, among other things, provides listing services on The NASDAQ Stock Market. The Company's Board generally focuses on the overall strategic direction of the Company, while NASDAQ's Board generally focuses on issues relevant specifically to The NASDAQ Stock Market, including issues affecting listed companies. Furthermore, NASDAQ's Board includes issuer representation, as required by its By-Laws.
Therefore, it is not strictly necessary to have an officer or employee of a listed company on the Company's Board of Directors, and accordingly, the Company proposes to amend its By-Laws to give itself the option, but not the requirement, to include an Issuer Director on its Board.
As required by Section 4.13(h)(iii) of the By-Laws, the Company's Corporate Secretary certifies to the Nominating & Governance Committee of the Company's Board on an annual basis the classification of each Director following a review of information relating to the classifications collected from the Directors. This certification usually occurs in connection with the Company's annual meeting of stockholders, and at the same time, Directors are elected to serve on various Board committees, all of which have compositional requirements relating to the classifications.
Section 4.7 of the By-Laws addresses potential disqualifications of Directors due to a classification change. Under this section, the term of office of a Director shall terminate immediately upon a determination by the Board, by a majority vote of the remaining Directors, that: (a) The Director no longer satisfies the classification for which the Director was elected; and (b) the Director's continued service would violate the Board compositional requirements. Section 4.7 also states that if a Director position becomes vacant because of such disqualification, and the remaining term of office is not more than six months, the By-Laws do not require an immediate replacement.
The Company has observed two potential weaknesses relating to the disqualification procedures as currently drafted. First, Section 4.7 of the By-Laws does not address a situation where a Director's classification has changed, but the Board believes that it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders for such Director to remain on the Board. Second, the By-Laws could be read to contemplate that the Company must immediately cure any deficiencies in Board or committee composition that may occur because of a change in a Director or committee member's classification because otherwise the Board would not meet all of the compositional requirements set forth in Section 4.3 of the By-Laws.
The Company therefore proposes to amend Section 4.7 of the By-Laws to provide that the Board may elect to defer until the next annual meeting of stockholders a determination regarding a change in a Director's classification and such Director's continued service on the Board.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
First, the Company is proposing an amendment to Section 4.3 of the By-Laws to state that it may, rather than shall, include at least one, but no more than two, Issuer Directors on its Board. The Exchange believes that this change will protect investors and the public interest by allowing the Company's Nominating & Governance Committee to select nominees for the Company's Board based on the overall strategic needs of the Board, the Company and its stockholders without forcing the Board to fill one slot with an officer or director of a listed company (
Second, the Company is proposing an amendment to Section 4.7 of the By-Laws to provide that the Board may elect to defer until the next annual meeting of stockholders a determination regarding a change in a Director's classification and such Director's continued service on the Board. Further, if the Board makes such an election, neither the Board nor any committee shall be deemed to be in violation of Section 4.3 of the By-Laws, which relates to Board composition, or Section 4.13 of the By-Laws, which relates to committee composition. The Exchange believes that this change will protect investors and the public interest by clarifying the disqualification provisions in the Company's By-Laws, which are currently ambiguous. In addition, the change will prevent the significant disruption that would occur if the Board were forced to replace an otherwise valuable director between annual meetings.
Because the proposed rule change relates to the governance of the Company and not to the operations of the Exchange, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
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.
New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or the “Exchange”) filed on April 16, 2015, with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Sections 312.03(b) and 312.04 of the Listed Company Manual (“Manual”) to provide an exemption to an “early stage company” listed on the Exchange from having to obtain shareholder approval, under certain circumstances, before issuing shares of common stock, or securities convertible into or exercisable for common stock, to a (1) director, officer
In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 312.03(b) to make clear that the proposed exemption will not be applicable to a sale of securities by a listed company to any person subject to the provisions of Section 312.03(b) in a transaction, or series of transactions, whose proceeds will be used to fund an acquisition of stock or assets of another company where such person has a direct or indirect interest in the company or assets to be acquired or in the consideration to be paid for such acquisition.
The Exchange also proposes to clarify in Section 312.03(b) that the sale of stock to a Related Party that is an employee, director or service provider is subject to the equity compensation rules in Section 303A.08 of the Manual.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Section 312.04 to include a definition of the term “early stage company.”
Lastly, the Exchange also proposes to delete obsolete text from Section 312.03 of the Manual related to a limited transition period that is no longer relevant.
As noted above, the Commission received a comment letter on the proposed rule change,
OIAD expressed the view that the proposed rule change is inconsistent with investor protection because it could result in economic dilution of the value and ownership control of an existing shareholder's interest in an early stage company.
In addition, OIAD highlighted that “all Related Parties . . . could obtain a significantly larger share of ownership control by paying the then-current market price for additional shares in a private transaction, without a vote of the existing shareholders.”
In response, the Exchange stated that OIAD's analysis failed to consider circumstances that make it “commercially reasonable to price private placement issuances at a discount to the then current market price.”
The Exchange also noted that Section 312.03(d) of the Manual provides a “significant limitation” on any increase in the relative voting power of Related Parties by requiring shareholder approval of any share issuance that gives rise to a change of control.
OIAD suggested that the Exchange's existing rules already provide a way for early stage companies to address time-sensitive situations without first obtaining shareholder approval.
In response, the Exchange stated that OIAD's suggested application of Section 312.05 is “inconsistent with the language and longstanding application of the limited exemption from obtaining shareholder approval.”
OIAD stated that the audit committee (or a comparable committee of independent directors) approval requirement is not an adequate substitute for a shareholder vote on Related Party transactions,
In response, the Exchange stated that directors owe a fiduciary duty to the shareholders they represent and can be held personally liable for any violation of that duty.
OIAD expressed concern that the proposal reflects a “race to the bottom” among the exchanges,
In response, the Exchange stated that the concerns of creating a “
Furthermore, in response to commenter concerns that the proposal would lead to investor confusion about which shareholder approval standards would apply to specific listed companies, the Exchange noted that all listing exchanges currently have exemptions in their corporate governance requirements that apply to different categories of issuers (
OIAD stated that the Notice does not provide sufficient information for the Commission to evaluate the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation, under Section 3(f) of the Act,
In response, the Exchange provided data on the impact of the proposal. The Exchange stated that there are currently 21 listed companies (out of 2,133 operating companies listed on the Exchange) that would qualify as an early stage company under the proposal.
In addition, the Exchange explained that the costs to comply with the proposed exemption will vary depending on the company and, among other things, the number and type of shareholders.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The development and enforcement of meaningful corporate governance listing standards for a national securities exchange is of substantial importance to financial markets and the investing public, especially given investor expectations regarding the nature of companies that have achieved an exchange listing for their securities. The corporate governance standards embodied in the listing standards of national securities exchanges, in particular, play an important role in assuring that exchange-listed companies observe good governance practices, including safeguarding the interests of shareholders with respect to certain potentially dilutive transactions.
As discussed above, OIAD noted that the proposed rule change could result in economic dilution of the value and ownership control of an existing shareholder's interest in an early stage company.
The Commission has carefully considered these and the other concerns expressed by the commenters. The Commission nevertheless finds, however, that the proposed rule change, on balance, is consistent with the Act, for the reasons set forth below.
The Commission acknowledges that the proposed rule change, by expanding the circumstances under which an early stage company could issue additional stock without shareholder approval, raises concern that such companies could engage in transactions with a harmful dilutive impact on existing shareholders. In the Commission's view, however, the significant proposed limitations on the ability of early stage companies to engage in such transactions, together with the countervailing potential benefits to the ability of small issuers to efficiently raise capital, and to fair competition among the listing exchanges, sufficiently offset those risks. Because the proposal allows early stage companies the flexibility to meet their financing needs while still preserving significant shareholder rights afforded under the other provisions of Section 312.03, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with investor protection and the public interest.
First, the Commission notes that the additional flexibility provided by the proposed rule change for early stage companies to issue additional stock without shareholder approval is limited by other important Exchange rules. For one, any discounted issuance of stock to an early stage company's officers or directors, or to a substantial security holder that is an employee or other service provider, would require shareholder approval under the Exchange's equity compensation rules.
In addition, the proposed rule change requires that, for all such transactions, the approval of the early stage company's audit committee, or a comparable committee comprised solely of independent directors, first be obtained. The Commission has long acknowledged the important role an independent Board committee has in protecting shareholders from potential conflicts of interest.
The Commission believes that an independent director committee is a proper forum, in executing its fiduciary duty, to review and approve these transactions and can appropriately protect shareholder interests. Additionally, the Commission notes that the Exchange, as a self-regulatory organization, is required, among other things, to enforce compliance with all Exchange rules, including its listing standards. To help the Exchange appropriately surveil its listed companies for compliance with the shareholder approval rules, under Section 703.01(A) of the Manual, listed companies are required to submit in writing, in advance of any issuance, a supplemental listing application to issue any additional shares of a listed security, including shares issued in a private transaction. Section 703.01(A) also requires that the company state whether shareholder approval is required under Exchange rules and, if so, when it was obtained. These provisions facilitate the monitoring of listed companies for compliance with the shareholder approval rules under the Manual and should aid the Exchange in monitoring compliance with the requirements for issuing private securities under the exemption, as well as whether shareholder approval is required under the change of control or equity compensation rules, among others.
The Commission also believes that facilitating the ability of early stage companies to efficiently raise needed capital under the limited circumstances permitted by the proposed rule change is in the public interest. By definition, early stage companies are those that have not yet generated significant revenue from operations, and may therefore need to raise capital quickly in order to fund their ongoing operations. Allowing early stage companies to flexibly raise capital, subject to audit committee approval and the other limitations described above, but without the delays inherent in a shareholder vote, could improve the business prospects of such companies and ultimately inure to the benefit of shareholders.
Further, the Commission recognizes that, as noted by the Exchange, the rules of other listing exchanges such as NASDAQ and NYSE MKT permit early stage companies similar flexibility in issuing additional stock without shareholder approval. While the Commission acknowledges OIAD's concern about a “race to the bottom” by the exchanges, the Commission also is cognizant of the fact that the exchanges operate in a highly competitive environment, including with respect to the listing of issuers. If the Commission were not to allow the Exchange to provide the same flexibility to listed companies offered by other listing markets, the Exchange Act goal of facilitating fair competition among the exchanges could be undermined. At the same time, investor protection might not materially improve, since early stage companies seeking the flexibility proposed by the Exchange simply may choose to list on NASDAQ or NYSE MKT.
The Commission notes that, in determining to approve the Exchange's proposed rule change, the Commission has considered, under Section 3(f) of the Act, whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
By making it less costly for early stage companies to raise additional capital they need to continue their operations, the proposed rule change will promote capital formation. Allowing these companies to stay afloat and grow also increases the likelihood that they would raise more funds in the future, further enhancing capital formation. In addition, the proposed rule change could enhance competition by allowing NYSE to compete for the listing of these companies in a competitive environment that allows these companies to list on other markets such as NASDAQ or NYSE MKT. In conclusion, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change could promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
Finally, the Commission acknowledges the important contributions that are being made by its Investor Advocate on a range of important policy matters, including those raised by individual proposed rule changes filed by the exchanges, such as the proposal that is the subject of this Order. While the Commission today determined that the NYSE's proposed rule change is consistent with the Act, the Commission encourages the Investor Advocate to continue bringing important matters to our attention, including identifying circumstances where incremental changes, while consistent with the Act, may be contributing to cumulative impacts that harm investors or impede fair and orderly markets. In this instance, the comments of the Investor Advocate prompted the Exchange to bolster the justification for its proposal, including through the provision of additional data, and to clarify its limited scope. As a result, the extent and quality of information available to the Commission in considering the proposed rule change was substantially enhanced, to the benefit of investors and all market participants. As our markets and regulatory structure continue to evolve, the views of the Investor Advocate will remain critical in helping the Commission further its mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation.
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether this filing, as modified by whether Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 in the
Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, on an accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change consists of (i) the postponement of the date for the retirement of DTC's proprietary computer to computer facility (“CCF”) files for corporate action announcements (“CCF Announcement Files”) until further notice; and (ii) the implementation of a fee associated with the use of CCF Announcement Files.
In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change would (i) postpone the date for the retirement of CCF Announcement Files until further notice, and (ii) implement a fee associated with the use of CCF Announcement Files, as described below.
DTC handles essential aspects of processing corporate action
Since 2011, DTC has informed Participants that CCF Announcement Files will be retired in 2015, and has been supporting Participant efforts to migrate to the ISO 20022 standard by providing a robust online learning center, hosting ISO specific monthly
The use of the ISO 20022 standard reduces risk and improves transparency in the announcement and processing of corporate actions. ISO 20022 is a standard that provides the financial industry with a common language to capture business transactions and associated message flows. ISO 20022 is a business-model-based standard for the development of messages for the international financial services industry and can support different messaging syntaxes, including XML. In contrast, CCF files use proprietary function and activity codes which differ from the market standard codes. With the ISO 20022 standard, corporate action announcements are identified by a unique corporate action ID and are event based. ISO 20022 standard messages provide more data elements than the CCF files and they are available in near real-time throughout the day.
Certain Participants nevertheless have inquired whether DTC could continue supporting CCF Announcement Files while they prepare to transition to the ISO 20022 standard, which is provided to Participants free of charge. Some Participants suggested that they were willing to pay for continued use of CCF Announcement Files while they prepare to migrate to ISO 20022 standard.
In response to these Participant requests, with this proposed rule change, DTC would postpone the date for the retirement of CCF Announcement Files and implement a fee for a Participant's continued receipt of the CCF Announcement Files. A new retirement date would be announced, subject to a future proposed rule change and Important Notice issued by DTC.
To encourage full adoption of the ISO 20022 standard, DTC is proposing to implement a fee for each event group of CCF Announcement Files that a Participant receives (the “CCF File Fee”). The CCF File Fee would be $50,000 per event group, per twelve month period as set forth below for each event group (the “Fee Period”). The CCF File Fee would be charged to the Account of the Participant, upon the Participant's first receipt of CCF Announcement Files for a particular event group during the Fee Period. The CCF File Fee would cover all CCF Announcement Files within that event group during the Fee Period. In addition, once a Participant that is part of an Affiliated Family
DTC has communicated with its Participants about the CCF File Fee through several outreach efforts, including Important Notices
DTC would implement the CFF File Fee in three phases, divided by event group. The timeline for the implementation of the fees would be as follows:
• CCF Announcement Files for the Distributions event group would be subject to a CCF File Fee beginning on January 1, 2016. The Fee Period would run from January through December.
• CCF Announcement Files for the Redemptions event group would be subject to a CCF File Fee beginning on July 1, 2016. The Fee Period would run from July through June.
• CCF Announcement Files for the Reorganizations event group would be subject to a CCF File Fee at a future date to be announced by Important Notice. The Fee Period would be announced by Important Notice.
The proposed rule change would take effect on January 1, 2016.
Section 17(A)(b)(3)(F) of the Act, requires,
Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act requires that DTC's Rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Participants.
DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition, because the postponement of the date for the retirement of CCF Announcement Files would apply equally to all Participants, and the proposed fee would apply equally in accordance with Participant use of the CCF Announcement Files.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
SCCP is filing this proposed rule change with respect to amendments of the By-Laws (the “By-Laws”) of its parent corporation, Nasdaq, Inc. (“Nasdaq” or the “Company”), to revise the requirements regarding Director classifications. This Amendment No. 1 to SR-SCCP-2015-02 amends and replaces the original filing in its entirety. The proposed amendments will be implemented on a date designated by the Company following approval by the Commission. The text of the proposed rule change is available on SCCP's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, SCCP 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. SCCP has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Company is proposing amendments to certain provisions of its By-Laws that relate to Director
Currently, the Company's By-Laws require that all of the Company's Directors be classified as: (i) Industry Directors;
The Company proposes to amend Section 4.3 of the By-Laws to state that the Board may, rather than shall, include one, but no more than two, Issuer Directors. With this change, the Company intends to give itself the option, but not the requirement, to include one or two Issuer Directors on its Board. Issuer Directors bring to the Board the perspective of an officer or employee of companies listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market. While the Company highly values the views of its listed companies, it does not believe that it is strictly necessary to have an Issuer Director on its own Board to represent those views. Within the overall governance structure of the Company and its subsidiaries, issues relating to listed companies are generally the province of NASDAQ and its Board of Directors, rather than the Company and its Board of Directors. The Company is a holding company for over 100 subsidiaries that provide both regulated and unregulated products and services across the globe, while NASDAQ is the Company subsidiary that, among other things, provides listing services on The NASDAQ Stock Market. The Company's Board generally focuses on the overall strategic direction of the Company, while NASDAQ's Board generally focuses on issues relevant specifically to The NASDAQ Stock Market, including issues affecting listed companies. Furthermore, NASDAQ's Board includes issuer representation, as required by its By-Laws.
Therefore, it is not strictly necessary to have an officer or employee of a listed company on the Company's Board of Directors, and accordingly, the Company proposes to amend its By-Laws to give itself the option, but not the requirement, to include an Issuer Director on its Board.
As required by Section 4.13(h)(iii) of the By-Laws, the Company's Corporate Secretary certifies to the Nominating & Governance Committee of the Company's Board on an annual basis the classification of each Director following a review of information relating to the classifications collected from the Directors. This certification usually occurs in connection with the Company's annual meeting of stockholders, and at the same time, Directors are elected to serve on various Board committees, all of which have compositional requirements relating to the classifications.
Section 4.7 of the By-Laws addresses potential disqualifications of Directors due to a classification change. Under this section, the term of office of a Director shall terminate immediately upon a determination by the Board, by a majority vote of the remaining Directors, that: (a) The Director no longer satisfies the classification for which the Director was elected; and (b) the Director's continued service would violate the Board compositional requirements. Section 4.7 also states that if a Director position becomes vacant because of such disqualification, and the remaining term of office is not more than six months, the By-Laws do not require an immediate replacement.
The Company has observed two potential weaknesses relating to the disqualification procedures as currently drafted. First, Section 4.7 of the By-Laws does not address a situation where a Director's classification has changed, but the Board believes that it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders for such Director to remain on the Board. Second, the By-Laws could be read to contemplate that the Company must immediately cure any deficiencies in Board or committee composition that may occur because of a change in a Director or committee
The Company therefore proposes to amend Section 4.7 of the By-Laws to provide that the Board may elect to defer until the next annual meeting of stockholders a determination regarding a change in a Director's classification and such Director's continued service on the Board.
SCCP believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(C) of the Act,
First, the Company is proposing an amendment to Section 4.3 of the By-Laws to state that it may, rather than shall, include at least one, but no more than two, Issuer Directors on its Board. SCCP believes that this change will assure a fair representation of shareholders and participants in the selection of directors and administration of its affairs by allowing the Company's Nominating & Governance Committee to select nominees for the Company's Board based on the overall strategic needs of the Board, the Company and its stockholders without forcing the Board to fill one slot with an officer or director of a listed company (
Second, the Company is proposing an amendment to Section 4.7 of the By-Laws to provide that the Board may elect to defer until the next annual meeting of stockholders a determination regarding a change in a Director's classification and such Director's continued service on the Board. Further, if the Board makes such an election, neither the Board nor any committee shall be deemed to be in violation of Section 4.3 of the By-Laws, which relates to Board composition, or Section 4.13 of the By-Laws, which relates to committee composition. SCCP believes that this change will assure a fair representation of shareholders and participants in the selection of directors and administration of its affairs by clarifying the disqualification provisions in the Company's By-Laws, which are currently ambiguous. In addition, the change will prevent the significant disruption that would occur if the Board were forced to replace an otherwise valuable director between annual meetings.
Because the proposed rule change relates to the governance of the Company and not to the operations of SCCP, SCCP does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
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.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of SCCP. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-SCCP-2015-02, and should be submitted on or before January 28, 2016.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing this proposed rule change with respect to amendments of the By-Laws (the “By-Laws”) of its parent corporation, Nasdaq, Inc. (“Nasdaq” or the “Company”), to revise the requirements regarding Director classifications. This Amendment No. 1 to SR-BX-2015-085 amends and replaces the original filing in its entirety. The proposed amendments will be implemented on a date designated by the Company following approval by the Commission. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Company is proposing amendments to certain provisions of its By-Laws that relate to Director
Currently, the Company's By-Laws require that all of the Company's Directors be classified as: (i) Industry
The Company proposes to amend Section 4.3 of the By-Laws to state that the Board may, rather than shall, include one, but no more than two, Issuer Directors. With this change, the Company intends to give itself the option, but not the requirement, to include one or two Issuer Directors on its Board. Issuer Directors bring to the Board the perspective of an officer or employee of companies listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market. While the Company highly values the views of its listed companies, it does not believe that it is strictly necessary to have an Issuer Director on its own Board to represent those views. Within the overall governance structure of the Company and its subsidiaries, issues relating to listed companies are generally the province of NASDAQ and its Board of Directors, rather than the Company and its Board of Directors. The Company is a holding company for over 100 subsidiaries that provide both regulated and unregulated products and services across the globe, while NASDAQ is the Company subsidiary that, among other things, provides listing services on The NASDAQ Stock Market. The Company's Board generally focuses on the overall strategic direction of the Company, while NASDAQ's Board generally focuses on issues relevant specifically to The NASDAQ Stock Market, including issues affecting listed companies. Furthermore, NASDAQ's Board includes issuer representation, as required by its By-Laws.
Therefore, it is not strictly necessary to have an officer or employee of a listed company on the Company's Board of Directors, and accordingly, the Company proposes to amend its By-Laws to give itself the option, but not the requirement, to include an Issuer Director on its Board.
As required by Section 4.13(h)(iii) of the By-Laws, the Company's Corporate Secretary certifies to the Nominating & Governance Committee of the Company's Board on an annual basis the classification of each Director following a review of information relating to the classifications collected from the Directors. This certification usually occurs in connection with the Company's annual meeting of stockholders, and at the same time, Directors are elected to serve on various Board committees, all of which have compositional requirements relating to the classifications.
Section 4.7 of the By-Laws addresses potential disqualifications of Directors due to a classification change. Under this section, the term of office of a Director shall terminate immediately upon a determination by the Board, by a majority vote of the remaining Directors, that: (a) The Director no longer satisfies the classification for which the Director was elected; and (b) the Director's continued service would violate the Board compositional requirements. Section 4.7 also states that if a Director position becomes vacant because of such disqualification, and the remaining term of office is not more than six months, the By-Laws do not require an immediate replacement.
The Company has observed two potential weaknesses relating to the disqualification procedures as currently drafted. First, Section 4.7 of the By-Laws does not address a situation where a Director's classification has changed, but the Board believes that it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders for such Director to remain on the Board. Second, the By-Laws could be read to contemplate that the Company must immediately cure any deficiencies in Board or committee composition that may occur because of a change in a Director or committee member's classification because otherwise the Board would not meet all of the compositional requirements set forth in Section 4.3 of the By-Laws.
The Company therefore proposes to amend Section 4.7 of the By-Laws to provide that the Board may elect to defer until the next annual meeting of stockholders a determination regarding a change in a Director's classification and such Director's continued service on the Board.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
First, the Company is proposing an amendment to Section 4.3 of the By-Laws to state that it may, rather than shall, include at least one, but no more than two, Issuer Directors on its Board. The Exchange believes that this change will protect investors and the public interest by allowing the Company's Nominating & Governance Committee to select nominees for the Company's Board based on the overall strategic needs of the Board, the Company and its stockholders without forcing the Board to fill one slot with an officer or director of a listed company (
Second, the Company is proposing an amendment to Section 4.7 of the By-Laws to provide that the Board may elect to defer until the next annual meeting of stockholders a determination regarding a change in a Director's classification and such Director's continued service on the Board. Further, if the Board makes such an election, neither the Board nor any committee shall be deemed to be in violation of Section 4.3 of the By-Laws, which relates to Board composition, or Section 4.13 of the By-Laws, which relates to committee composition. The Exchange believes that this change will protect investors and the public interest by clarifying the disqualification provisions in the Company's By-Laws, which are currently ambiguous. In addition, the change will prevent the significant disruption that would occur if the Board were forced to replace an otherwise valuable director between annual meetings.
Because the proposed rule change relates to the governance of the Company and not to the operations of the Exchange, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2015-085. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17Ad-16 requires a registered transfer agent to provide written notice to the appropriate qualified registered securities depository when assuming or terminating transfer agent services on behalf of an issuer or when changing its name or address. In addition, transfer agents that provide such notice shall maintain such notice for a period of at least two years in an easily accessible place. This rule addresses the problem of certificate transfer delays caused by transfer requests that are directed to the wrong transfer agent or the wrong address.
We estimate that the transfer agent industry submits approximately 6,970 Rule 17Ad-16 notices to appropriate qualified registered securities depositories. The staff estimates that the average amount of time necessary to create and submit each notice is approximately 15 minutes per notice. Accordingly, the estimated total industry burden is 1,743 hours per year (15 minutes multiplied by 6,970 filed annually).
Because the information needed by transfer agents to properly notify the appropriate registered securities depository is readily available to them and the report is simple and straightforward, the cost is relatively minimal. The average internal compliance cost to prepare and send a notice is approximately $7.50 (15 minutes at $30 per hour). This yields an industry-wide internal compliance cost estimate of $52,275 (6,970 notices multiplied by $7.50 per notice).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “SEA”)
FINRA is filing revisions to the content outline and selection specifications for the General Securities Sales Supervisor (Series 9/10) examination program.
The revised content outline is attached.
The text of [sic] the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act
NASD Rule 1022(g) states that members may register with FINRA an individual as a General Securities Sales Supervisor if the individual's supervisory responsibilities in the investment banking and securities business are limited solely to the securities sales activities of a member, including the training of sales and sales supervisory personnel and the maintenance of records of original entry and ledger accounts of the member required to be maintained in branch offices by SEC recordkeeping rules.
To register as a General Securities Sales Supervisor, an individual must be registered pursuant to the NASD Rule 1030 Series as a General Securities Representative. In addition, the individual must pass the Series 9/10 examination.
In consultation with a committee of industry representatives, FINRA recently undertook a review of the Series 9/10 examination program. As a result of this review, FINRA is proposing to make revisions to the content outline to reflect changes to the laws, rules and regulations covered by the examination and to incorporate the functions and associated tasks currently performed by a General Securities Sales Supervisor. FINRA also is proposing to make changes to the format of the content outline.
The current content outline is divided into six sections. The following are the six sections and the number of questions associated with each of the sections, denoted Section 1 through Section 6:
1. Hiring, Qualifications, and Continuing Education, 9 questions;
2. Supervision of Accounts and Sales Activities, 94 questions;
3. Conduct of Associated Persons, 14 questions;
4. Recordkeeping Requirements, 8 questions;
5. Municipal Securities Regulation, 20 questions;
6. Options Regulation, 55 questions.
Each section also includes the applicable laws, rules and regulations associated with that section. The current content outline also includes a preface (addressing, among other things, the purpose, administration and scoring of the examination), sample questions and reference materials.
FINRA is proposing to divide the content outline into two parts with eight major job functions that are performed by a General Securities Sales Supervisor. The following are the two parts each with four major job functions, denoted as Parts 1 and 2 with Function 1 through Function 4, respectively, with the associated number of questions:
Function 1: Supervise Associated Persons and Personnel Management Activities, 28 questions;
Function 2: Supervise the Opening and Maintenance of Customer Accounts, 49 questions;
Function 3: Supervise Sales Practices and General Trading Activities, 52 questions;
Function 4: Supervise Communications with the Public, 16 questions.
Function 1: Supervise the Opening and Maintenance of Customer Options Accounts, 18 questions;
Function 2: Supervise Sales Practices and General Options Trading Activities, 19 questions;
Function 3: Supervise Options Communications, 5 questions;
Function 4: Supervise Associated Persons and Personnel Management Activities, 13 questions.
FINRA is proposing to adjust the number of questions assigned to each major job function to ensure that the overall examination better reflects the key tasks performed by a General Securities Sales Supervisor. The questions on the revised Series 9/10 examination will place greater emphasis on key tasks such as supervision of registered persons, sales practices and compliance.
Each function also includes specific tasks describing activities associated with performing that function. In Part 1, there are five tasks (1.1-1.5) associated with Function 1; four tasks (2.1-2.4) associated with Function 2; five tasks (3.1-3.5) associated with Function 3; and four tasks (4.1-4.4) associated with Function 4. In Part 2, there are three tasks (1.1-1.3) associated with Function 1; four tasks (2.1-2.4) associated with Function 2; three tasks (3.1-3.3) associated with Function 3; and one task (4.1) associated with Function 4.
As noted above, FINRA also is proposing to revise the content outline to reflect changes to the laws, rules and regulations covered by the examination. Among other revisions, FINRA is proposing to revise the content outline to reflect the adoption of rules in the consolidated FINRA rulebook (
FINRA is proposing similar changes to the Series 9/10 selection specifications and question bank.
Finally, FINRA is proposing to make changes to the format of the content outline, including the preface, sample questions and reference materials. Among other changes, FINRA is proposing to: (1) Add a table of contents;
The number of questions on the Series 9/10 examination will remain at 200 multiple-choice questions (55 on the Series 9 and 145 on the Series 10).
The current Series 9/10 content outline is available on FINRA's Web site, at
FINRA is filing the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. FINRA proposes to implement the revised Series 9/10 examination program on March 7, 2016. FINRA will announce the proposed rule change and the implementation date in a
FINRA believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 9/10 examination program are consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The updated examination aligns with the functions and associated tasks currently performed by a General Securities Sales Supervisor and tests knowledge of the most current laws, rules, regulations and skills relevant to those functions
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice by a Self-Regulatory Organization of Proposed Admission to or Continuance in Membership or Participation or Association with a Member of Any Person Subject to a Statutory Disqualification, and Applications to the Commission for Relief Therefrom.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 19h-1 (“Rule”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) prescribes the form and content of notices and applications by self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) regarding proposed admissions to, or continuances in, membership, participation or association with a member of any person subject to a statutory disqualification.
The Commission uses the information provided in the submissions filed pursuant to Rule 19h-1 to review decisions of SROs to permit the entry into or continuance in the securities business of persons who have committed serious misconduct. The filings submitted pursuant to the Rule also permit inclusion of an application to the Commission for consent to associate with a member of an SRO notwithstanding a Commission order barring such association.
The Commission reviews filings made pursuant to the Rule to ascertain whether it is in the public interest to permit the employment in the securities business of persons subject to a statutory disqualification. The filings contain information that is essential to the staff's review and ultimate determination on whether an association or employment is in the public interest and consistent with investor protection. Without these filings, persons subject to a statutory disqualification could reenter or continue employment in the securities business without the Commission's critical review of their character, ability to act as a fiduciary, and their employer's plan of supervision. The failure to collect and review this information could result in significant harm to the investing public.
The Commission estimates the annual burden of responding to this collection of information is as follows.
The Commission 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 OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
BSECC is filing this proposed rule change with respect to amendments of the By-Laws (the “By-Laws”) of its parent corporation, Nasdaq, Inc. (“Nasdaq” or the “Company”), to revise the requirements regarding Director classifications. This Amendment No. 1 to SR-BSECC-2015-002 amends and replaces the original filing in its entirety. The proposed amendments will be implemented on a date designated by the Company following approval by the Commission. The text of the proposed rule change is available on BSECC's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, BSECC 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. BSECC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Company is proposing amendments to certain provisions of its By-Laws that relate to Director
Currently, the Company's By-Laws require that all of the Company's Directors be classified as: (i) Industry
The Company proposes to amend Section 4.3 of the By-Laws to state that the Board may, rather than shall, include one, but no more than two, Issuer Directors. With this change, the Company intends to give itself the option, but not the requirement, to include one or two Issuer Directors on its Board. Issuer Directors bring to the Board the perspective of an officer or employee of companies listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market. While the Company highly values the views of its listed companies, it does not believe that it is strictly necessary to have an Issuer Director on its own Board to represent those views. Within the overall governance structure of the Company and its subsidiaries, issues relating to listed companies are generally the province of NASDAQ and its Board of Directors, rather than the Company and its Board of Directors. The Company is a holding company for over 100 subsidiaries that provide both regulated and unregulated products and services across the globe, while NASDAQ is the Company subsidiary that, among other things, provides listing services on The NASDAQ Stock Market. The Company's Board generally focuses on the overall strategic direction of the Company, while NASDAQ's Board generally focuses on issues relevant specifically to The NASDAQ Stock Market, including issues affecting listed companies. Furthermore, NASDAQ's Board includes issuer representation, as required by its By-Laws.
Therefore, it is not strictly necessary to have an officer or employee of a listed company on the Company's Board of Directors, and accordingly, the Company proposes to amend its By-Laws to give itself the option, but not the requirement, to include an Issuer Director on its Board.
As required by Section 4.13(h)(iii) of the By-Laws, the Company's Corporate Secretary certifies to the Nominating & Governance Committee of the Company's Board on an annual basis the classification of each Director following a review of information relating to the classifications collected from the Directors. This certification usually occurs in connection with the Company's annual meeting of stockholders, and at the same time, Directors are elected to serve on various Board committees, all of which have compositional requirements relating to the classifications.
Section 4.7 of the By-Laws addresses potential disqualifications of Directors due to a classification change. Under this section, the term of office of a Director shall terminate immediately upon a determination by the Board, by a majority vote of the remaining Directors, that: (a) The Director no longer satisfies the classification for which the Director was elected; and (b) the Director's continued service would violate the Board compositional requirements. Section 4.7 also states that if a Director position becomes vacant because of such disqualification, and the remaining term of office is not more than six months, the By-Laws do not require an immediate replacement.
The Company has observed two potential weaknesses relating to the disqualification procedures as currently drafted. First, Section 4.7 of the By-Laws does not address a situation where a Director's classification has changed, but the Board believes that it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders for such Director to remain on the Board. Second, the By-Laws could be read to contemplate that the Company must immediately cure any deficiencies in Board or committee composition that may occur because of a change in a Director or committee member's classification because otherwise the Board would not meet all of the compositional requirements set forth in Section 4.3 of the By-Laws.
The Company therefore proposes to amend Section 4.7 of the By-Laws to provide that the Board may elect to defer until the next annual meeting of stockholders a determination regarding a change in a Director's classification and such Director's continued service on the Board.
BSECC believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(C) of the Act,
First, the Company is proposing an amendment to Section 4.3 of the By-Laws to state that it may, rather than shall, include at least one, but no more than two, Issuer Directors on its Board. BSECC believes that this change will assure a fair representation of shareholders and participants in the selection of directors and administration of its affairs by allowing the Company's Nominating & Governance Committee to select nominees for the Company's Board based on the overall strategic needs of the Board, the Company and its stockholders without forcing the Board to fill one slot with an officer or director of a listed company (
Second, the Company is proposing an amendment to Section 4.7 of the By-Laws to provide that the Board may elect to defer until the next annual meeting of stockholders a determination regarding a change in a Director's classification and such Director's continued service on the Board. Further, if the Board makes such an election, neither the Board nor any committee shall be deemed to be in violation of Section 4.3 of the By-Laws, which relates to Board composition, or Section 4.13 of the By-Laws, which relates to committee composition. BSECC believes that this change will assure a fair representation of shareholders and participants in the selection of directors and administration of its affairs by clarifying the disqualification provisions in the Company's By-Laws, which are currently ambiguous. In addition, the change will prevent the significant disruption that would occur if the Board were forced to replace an otherwise valuable director between annual meetings.
Because the proposed rule change relates to the governance of the Company and not to the operations of BSECC, BSECC does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
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.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of BSECC. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSECC-2015-002, and should be submitted on or before January 28, 2016.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing this proposed rule change with respect to amendments of the By-Laws (the “By-Laws”) of its parent corporation, Nasdaq, Inc. (“Nasdaq” or the “Company”), to revise the requirements regarding Director classifications. This Amendment No. 2 to SR-Phlx-2015-113 amends and replaces the original filing in its entirety.
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 Company is proposing amendments to certain provisions of its By-Laws that relate to Director
Currently, the Company's By-Laws require that all of the Company's Directors be classified as: (i) Industry
The Company proposes to amend Section 4.3 of the By-Laws to state that the Board may, rather than shall, include one, but no more than two, Issuer Directors. With this change, the Company intends to give itself the option, but not the requirement, to include one or two Issuer Directors on its Board. Issuer Directors bring to the Board the perspective of an officer or employee of companies listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market. While the Company highly values the views of its listed companies, it does not believe that it is strictly necessary to have an Issuer Director on its own Board to represent those views. Within the overall governance structure of the Company and its subsidiaries, issues relating to listed companies are generally the province of NASDAQ and its Board of Directors, rather than the Company and its Board of Directors. The Company is a holding company for over 100 subsidiaries that provide both regulated and unregulated products and services across the globe, while NASDAQ is the Company subsidiary that, among other things, provides listing services on The NASDAQ Stock Market. The Company's Board generally focuses on the overall strategic direction of the Company, while NASDAQ's Board generally focuses on issues relevant specifically to The NASDAQ Stock Market, including issues affecting listed companies. Furthermore, NASDAQ's Board includes issuer representation, as required by its By-Laws.
Therefore, it is not strictly necessary to have an officer or employee of a listed company on the Company's Board of Directors, and accordingly, the Company proposes to amend its By-Laws to give itself the option, but not the requirement, to include an Issuer Director on its Board.
As required by Section 4.13(h)(iii) of the By-Laws, the Company's Corporate Secretary certifies to the Nominating & Governance Committee of the Company's Board on an annual basis the classification of each Director following a review of information relating to the classifications collected from the Directors. This certification usually occurs in connection with the Company's annual meeting of stockholders, and at the same time, Directors are elected to serve on various Board committees, all of which have compositional requirements relating to the classifications.
Section 4.7 of the By-Laws addresses potential disqualifications of Directors due to a classification change. Under this section, the term of office of a Director shall terminate immediately upon a determination by the Board, by a majority vote of the remaining Directors, that: (a) The Director no longer satisfies the classification for which the Director was elected; and (b) the Director's continued service would violate the Board compositional requirements. Section 4.7 also states that if a Director position becomes vacant because of such disqualification, and the remaining term of office is not more than six months, the By-Laws do not require an immediate replacement.
The Company has observed two potential weaknesses relating to the disqualification procedures as currently drafted. First, Section 4.7 of the By-Laws does not address a situation where a Director's classification has changed, but the Board believes that it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders for such Director to remain on the Board. Second, the By-Laws could be read to contemplate that the Company must immediately cure any deficiencies in Board or committee composition that may occur because of a change in a Director or committee member's classification because otherwise the Board would not meet all of the compositional requirements set forth in Section 4.3 of the By-Laws.
The Company therefore proposes to amend Section 4.7 of the By-Laws to provide that the Board may elect to defer until the next annual meeting of stockholders a determination regarding a change in a Director's classification and such Director's continued service on the Board.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
First, the Company is proposing an amendment to Section 4.3 of the By-Laws to state that it may, rather than shall, include at least one, but no more than two, Issuer Directors on its Board. The Exchange believes that this change will protect investors and the public interest by allowing the Company's Nominating & Governance Committee to select nominees for the Company's Board based on the overall strategic needs of the Board, the Company and its stockholders without forcing the Board to fill one slot with an officer or director of a listed company (
Second, the Company is proposing an amendment to Section 4.7 of the By-Laws to provide that the Board may elect to defer until the next annual meeting of stockholders a determination regarding a change in a Director's classification and such Director's continued service on the Board. Further, if the Board makes such an election, neither the Board nor any committee shall be deemed to be in violation of Section 4.3 of the By-Laws, which relates to Board composition, or Section 4.13 of the By-Laws, which relates to committee composition. The Exchange believes that this change will protect investors and the public interest by clarifying the disqualification provisions in the Company's By-Laws, which are currently ambiguous. In addition, the change will prevent the significant disruption that would occur if the Board were forced to replace an otherwise valuable director between annual meetings.
Because the proposed rule change relates to the governance of the Company and not to the operations of the Exchange, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “SEA”)
FINRA is proposing to amend the instructions to the Derivatives and Other Off-Balance Sheet Items Schedule (“OBS”) pursuant to FINRA Rule 4524 (Supplemental FOCUS Information) to expand the application of the OBS to certain non-carrying/non-clearing firms that have significant amounts of off-balance sheet obligations. The proposed rule change does not propose amendments to existing rule text.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections IIA, IIB, and IIC below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
FINRA Rule 4524 requires each firm, as FINRA shall designate, to file such additional financial or operational schedules or reports as FINRA may deem necessary or appropriate for the protection of investors or in the public interest as a supplement to the FOCUS Report.
Pursuant to FINRA Rule 4524, the proposed rule change would amend the instructions to the OBS to expand its application beyond carrying or clearing firms to include firms that neither carry customer accounts nor clear transactions (referred to, collectively, as “non-clearing firms”) that have, pursuant to SEA Rule 15c3-1,
When FINRA proposed the OBS, FINRA noted the need, in the aftermath of the financial crisis, to obtain more comprehensive and consistent information regarding carrying or clearing firms' off-balance sheet assets, liabilities and other commitments.
Since the OBS became effective, however, FINRA has observed considerable principal trading activities of some non-clearing firms. In particular, through its efforts to establish margin requirements for the TBA market
As a result of these concerns, and to ensure that all firms with significant derivative and off-balance sheet positions report these positions to FINRA on a consistent and regular basis, FINRA is proposing to expand the reporting requirements of the OBS to non-clearing firms that have a minimum dollar net capital requirement equal to or greater than $100,000, and at least $10 million in reportable items pursuant to the OBS. The current de minimis exception would remain available to any firm that conducts limited off-balance sheet activity.
If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, FINRA will announce the implementation date (
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA has carefully crafted the proposed rule change to achieve its intended and necessary regulatory purpose while minimizing the burden on firms.
The purpose of the proposal is to ensure that all firms with significant derivative and off-balance sheet positions report these positions to FINRA on a consistent and regular basis. Specifically, the proposal extends the reporting requirement to non-clearing firms that have a minimum dollar net capital requirement equal to or greater than $100,000, and at least $10 million in reportable items pursuant to the OBS. The primary anticipated net benefit of the proposal is better insights into the size and nature of firms' open exposures in TBA and other extended settlement transactions or other off-balance sheet exposures. This information would enable FINRA to more efficiently monitor on an ongoing basis the financial condition of member firms, including firms' compliance with capital adequacy rules. FINRA also expects that impacted non-clearing firms, as well as their correspondent clearing firms, would benefit from increased awareness of their open trade exposures, which may reduce their potential for losses. Accordingly, FINRA's experience suggests that firms may apply better counterparty risk management practices as a result of extending the OBS to the additional firms.
FINRA estimates that approximately 100 additional firms will be required to file the OBS under the proposal, though the actual number will fluctuate as off-balance sheet items and excess net capital vary depending on firms' reporting figures. However, the filing of the OBS is not expected to have significant compliance costs for the newly affected firms and will not impact member firms currently required to file the OBS.
The proposal will ensure that all firms with significant off-balance sheet obligations are required to report them in a consistent manner. Further, the reporting requirement is expected to create positive externalities as firms that currently do not report this information will be able to better monitor and manage their counterparty exposures, better manage their participation in off-balance sheet activities and maintain sufficient net capital to support such transactions. To the extent that member firms reduce their off-balance sheet activities as a result of this rule, impacted customers may incur search costs as they replace their broker counterparties.
A potential significant benefit of the proposal may arise from enhanced monitoring of systemic risk that is caused by the interconnectedness of firms through significant counterparty exposure and likelihood of correlated defaults in the financial industry. This enhanced monitoring of systemic risk should also benefit clearing firms as counterparty risk is partially mitigated for these firms as a result of better monitoring of financial exposures created by these transactions. There is academic evidence that banking systems may be less prone to crises if more comprehensive financial reporting regimes are in effect, even when the reporting is only to the regulator.
FINRA considered alternative thresholds, such as extending the OBS reporting requirements to non-clearing firms with less than $10 million in reportable items, when developing the proposed rule change. In connection with this proposal, FINRA identified 334 firms that currently do not file the OBS with open exposure in TBA and other extended settlement transactions totaling approximately $93.3 billion.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2015-059. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
This notice announces a meeting of the Department of State's International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) to review the activities of the Department of State in recent international meetings on international communications and information policy and preview upcoming similar activities. The ITAC will meet on January 21, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. EST at: 1300 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. The ITAC will review the results of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) 2015 Radio Assembly and the 2015 World Radiocommunication Conference and World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) +10 review.
The ITAC will also discuss the ITU World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly 2016 (WTSA 16) taking place in the fourth quarter of 2016, including positions on study program restructuring and leadership. The WTSA, the quadrennial assembly of the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T), will consider the reports of the ITU-T Study Groups, approve the sector's program of
work, decide the Study Group structure, and appoint chairmen and vice-chairmen. At the ITAC meeting, we invite comment from the public on U.S. priorities for WTSA 16.
The meeting will also highlight preparations for the ITU Council meeting taking place from 25 May to 2 June 2016 and related ITU Council Working Groups. The Council acts as the governing body between plenipotentiary conferences.
Attendance at this meeting is open to the public as seating capacity allows. The public will have an opportunity to provide comments at this meeting at the invitation of the chair. Further details on this ITAC meeting will be announced on the Department of State's email list,
Persons wishing to request reasonable accommodation for the meeting should contact
Please contact Franz Zichy at 202-647-5778,
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) up to February 8, 2016.
Direct comments to the Department of State 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:
•
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Taylor Mauck, who may be reached at 202-485-7635 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
Form DS-260 will be used to elicit information to determine the eligibility of aliens applying for immigrant visas.
The DS-260 will be submitted electronically to the Department via the Internet. The applicant will be instructed to print a confirmation page containing a 2-D bar code record locator, which will be scanned at the time of processing. Applicants who submit the electronic application will no longer submit paper-based applications to the Department.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The FTA, as the federal lead agency, and the New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ TRANSIT), as joint lead agency, are planning to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the NJ TRANSITGRID TRACTION POWER SYSTEM, which will provide a reliable electric power generation system (called a microgrid) to provide electricity to operate trains on a portion of the NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak rail systems, including some sections of the Northeast Corridor and Morris & Essex line, and the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail System. The microgrid, which is needed to enhance the resiliency of the public transportation system, will also provide electricity for some signal power and tunnel ventilation, pumping, and lighting on the Main Line and Northeast Corridor. NJ TRANSITGRID consists of two projects with independent utility from each other: The TRACTION POWER SYSTEM and the DISTRIBUTED GENERATION SOLUTIONS, which will provide power to train and bus stations and other transportation facilities in northeastern New Jersey with sustainable energy sources such as fuel cells, photovoltaic panels, and combined heat and power units. The EIS, which will be prepared only for the NJ TRANSITGRID TRACTION POWER SYSTEM, will be in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and FTA regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as well as expedited project delivery provisions of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). DISTRIBUTED GENERATIONS SOLUTIONS is a project with independent utility from the TRACTION POWER SYSTEM and will progress in a separate process to comply with NEPA and MAP-21.
Written comments on the scope of the EIS should be sent to Mr. Nick Marton or Mr. Chris Jeter by February 29, 2016. A public scoping meeting will be held on February 3, 2016 between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. at the location indicated under
Written comments on the scope of the EIS should be sent to: Mr. Nick Marton, Project Manager, NJ TRANSIT, River Line Office, 800 Lemuel Avenue, Camden, NJ 08105 or Mr. Chris Jeter, NJ TRANSIT, One Penn Plaza East, 8th Floor, Newark, NJ 07105-2246. Comments may also be offered at the public scoping meeting. The date, time, and address for the public scoping meeting is as follows:
This location is accessible to persons with disabilities. If special translation or signing service or other special accommodations are needed, please contact the Project Manager, Mr. Nick Marton at (856) 614-7003 or Mr. Chris Jeter at (973) 491-7707 at least 48 hours before the meeting. A
Ms. Nancy Danzig, Director of Planning and Program Development, FTA Region 2, One Bowling Green, Room 429, New York, NY 10004. (212) 668-2177.
• A simple-cycle reciprocating engine plant, with multiple reciprocating engines;
• A combined-cycle reciprocating engine plant, configured with multiple reciprocating engines and one steam turbine;
• A simple-cycle combustion-turbine plant, with three combustion turbines; and
• A combined-cycle gas turbine plant, configured with two combustion turbines and one steam turbine.
The preferred generation system could be one of the four listed above or a combination of reciprocating engine and gas turbine technologies. Clean-burning natural gas will provide fuel for the combustion turbines and/or engines. A no action alternative, which contemplates roadway and transit facility improvements (other than the proposed project) planned for and programmed to be implemented by the year 2021 (the proposed project's completion year) will be defined to serve as a baseline for comparison to the build alternative options.
A project site for the approximate 104 MW power plant was identified in Kearny, Hudson County, New Jersey based on a site screening analysis that evaluated properties on the Kearny Peninsula near NJ TRANSIT's Mason and Amtrak's Kearny (Sub 41) substations. The NJ Transit Site Screening Analysis can be found on the projects Web page at
These two substations will receive the highest electrical loads from the microgrid to supply power to the Morris & Essex Line and Northeast Corridor via transmission lines that run from the generation site to the substations. Transmission lines will also run from the proposed project site to NJ TRANSIT's Henderson substation in Hoboken, New Jersey to supply power to the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail.
The Plan outlines outreach to local and county officials and community and civic groups; a public scoping process to define the issues of concern among all parties interested in the project; establishment of a Technical Advisory Committee and periodic meetings with that committee; a public hearing on release of the Draft EIS; and development and distribution of project newsletters.
The purpose of and need for the proposed project has been preliminarily identified in this notice. We invite the public and participating agencies to consider the preliminary statement of purpose and need for the project, as well as the alternatives proposed for consideration. Suggestions for modifications to the statement of purpose and need and any other reasonable alternatives that meet the purpose and need for the project are welcomed and will be given serious consideration. Comments on significant environmental impacts that may be associated with the proposed project and alternatives are also welcomed. There will be additional opportunities to participate in the scoping process at the public meeting announced in this notice.
Public comments will be received through those methods explained earlier in this NOI and will be incorporated into a Final Scoping Document. The Final Scoping Document will detail the scope of the EIS and the potential environmental effects that will be considered during the NEPA process. After the completion of the Draft EIS, a public and agency review period will allow for input on the Draft EIS and these comments will be incorporated into the Final EIS for the proposed project. In accordance with Section 1319 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-114),
The Paperwork Reduction Act seeks, in part, to minimize the cost to the taxpayer of the creation, collection, maintenance, use, dissemination, and disposition of information. Consistent with this goal and with principles of economy and efficiency in government, it is FTA policy to limit insofar as possible distribution of complete printed sets of NEPA documents. Accordingly, unless a specific request for a complete printed set of the NEPA document is received before the document is printed, FTA and NJ Transit will distribute only electronic copies of the NEPA document. A complete printed set of the environmental document will be available for review at the NJ Transit offices and elsewhere; an electronic copy of the complete environmental document will be available on the project's Web page
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice announces final environmental actions taken by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for a project in Los Angeles, CA. The purpose of this notice is to announce publicly the environmental decisions by FTA on the subject project and to activate the limitation on any claims that may challenge these final environmental actions.
By this notice, FTA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to Section 139(l) of Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.). A claim seeking judicial review of FTA actions announced herein for the listed public transportation project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before June 6, 2016.
Nancy-Ellen Zusman, Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, (312) 353-2577 or Terence Plaskon, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Environmental Programs, (202) 366-0442. FTA is located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Notice is hereby given that FTA has taken final agency actions by issuing certain approvals for the public transportation project listed below. The actions on the project, as well as the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the documentation issued in connection with the project to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in other documents in the FTA administrative record for the project. Interested parties may contact either the project sponsor or the relevant FTA Regional Office for more information. Contact information for FTA's Regional Offices may be found at
This notice applies to all FTA decisions on the listed project as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including, but not limited to, NEPA [42 U.S.C. 4321-4375], Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303], Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 470f], and the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q]. This notice does not, however, alter or extend the limitation period for challenges of project decisions subject to previous notices for the Regional Connector Transit Corridor Project published in the
Connex Railroad LLC (Connex), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to lease from noncarrier Buzzi Unicem USA (Buzzi), operate, and maintain approximately 1,500 feet of railroad track located in College Park, Ga. (the Line). Connex states that the Line crosses West Point Avenue and connects to a CSX Transportation, Inc., mainline track in College Park, Ga., at milepost 12 of the CSX Old Atlanta West Point Subdivision. According to Connex, there are no mileposts associated with the Line, but it is identified as Buzzi Unicem Track ID XXB012.
Connex states that the proposed transaction does not involve any provision or agreement that would limit Connex's ability to interchange with a third party.
The transaction may be consummated on or after January 21, 2016, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice of exemption was filed).
Connex certifies that the projected annual revenues do not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million.
If the 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 January 14, 2016 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35986, 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 David H. Coburn, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 1330 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20036.
Board decisions and notices are available at our Web site at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR) filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152 subpart F—
NSR has certified that: (1) No local or overhead traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years and overhead traffic, if there were any, could be rerouted over other lines; (2) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board or any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of the complainant within the two-year period; and (3) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the discontinuance shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) to subsidize continued rail service has been received, this exemption will become effective on February 6, 2016, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues and formal expressions of intent to file an OFA to subsidize continued rail service under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2)
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to NSR's representative: William A. Mullins, Baker & Miller PLLC, 2401 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20037.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Capitalized terms used in this NOGA and not defined elsewhere are defined in the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program Regulations (12 CFR 1808.102) and the CDFI Program regulations (12 CFR 1805.104).
A.
B.
C.
D.
1. Qualified Issuer Applications submitted with Guarantee Applications will have priority for review over Qualified Issuer Applications submitted without Guarantee Applications. With the exception of the aforementioned prioritized review, all Qualified Issuer Applications and Guarantee Applications will be reviewed by the CDFI Fund on an ongoing basis, in the order in which they are received or by such other criteria that the CDFI Fund may establish, in its sole discretion.
2. Guarantee Applications that are incomplete or require the CDFI Fund to request additional or clarifying information may delay the ability of the CDFI Fund to move the Guarantee Application to the next phase of review. Submitting an incomplete Guarantee Application earlier than other applicants does not ensure first approval.
3. Qualified Issuer Applications and Guarantee Applications that were received in FY 2015 and that were neither withdrawn nor declined in FY 2015 will be considered under FY 2016 authority.
4. Pursuant to the Regulations at 12 CFR 1808.504(c), the Guarantor may limit the number of Guarantees issued per year or the number of Guarantee Applications accepted to ensure that a sufficient examination of Guarantee Applications is conducted.
E.
1. CDFI Bond Guarantee Program Regulations. The regulations that govern the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program were published on February 5, 2013 (78 FR 8296; 12 CFR part 1808) (the Regulations) and provides the regulatory requirements and parameters for CDFI Bond Guarantee Program implementation and administration including general provisions, eligibility, eligible activities, applications for Guarantee and Qualified Issuer, evaluation and selection, terms and conditions of the Guarantee, Bonds, Bond Loans, and Secondary Loans.
2. Application materials. Details regarding Qualified Issuer Application and Guarantee Application content requirements are found in this NOGA and the respective application materials.
3. Program documentation. Interested parties should review template Bond Documents and Bond Loan documents that will be used in connection with each Guarantee. The template documents are posted on the CDFI Fund's Web site for review. Such documents include, among others:
a. The Agreement to Guarantee, which describes the roles and responsibilities of the Qualified Issuer, will be signed by the Qualified Issuer and the Guarantor and will include term sheets as exhibits that will be signed by each individual Eligible CDFI;
b. The Bond Trust Indenture, which describes responsibilities of the Master Servicer/Trustee in overseeing the Trust Estate and servicing of the Bonds and will be entered into by the Qualified Issuer and the Master Servicer/Trustee;
c. The Bond Loan Agreement, which describes the terms and conditions of Bond Loans and will be entered into by the Qualified Issuer and each Eligible CDFI that receives a Bond Loan;
d. The Bond Purchase Agreement, which describes the terms and conditions under which the Bond Purchaser will purchase the Bonds issued by the Qualified Issuer and will be signed by the Bond Purchaser, the Qualified Issuer, the Guarantor and the CDFI Fund; and
e. The Future Advance Promissory Bond, which will be signed by the Qualified Issuer as its promise to repay the Bond Purchaser.
The template documents may be updated periodically, as needed, and will be tailored, as appropriate, to the terms and conditions of a particular Bond, Bond Loan, and Guarantee.
The Bond Documents and the Bond Loan documents reflect the terms and conditions of the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program and will not be substantially revised or negotiated prior to execution.
4. Frequently Asked Questions. The CDFI Fund will periodically post on its Web site responses to questions that are asked by parties interested in the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program.
F.
G.
H.
1. Award funds received under any other CDFI Fund Program cannot be used by any participant, including Qualified Issuers, Eligible CDFIs, and Secondary Borrowers, to pay principal, interest, fees, administrative costs, or issuance costs (including Bond Issuance Fees) related to the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, or to fund the Risk-Share Pool for a Bond Issue.
2. Bond Proceeds may be combined with New Markets Tax Credits (NMTC) derived equity (
3. Bond Proceeds may not be used to refinance a leveraged loan during the seven-year NMTC compliance period. However, Bond Proceeds may be used to refinance a QLICI after the seven-year NMTC compliance period has ended, so long as all other programmatic requirements are met.
4. The terms Qualified Equity Investment, Community Development Entity, and Qualified Low-Income Community Investment are defined in the NMTC Program's authorizing statute, 26 U.S.C. 45D.
I.
1. The CDFI Bond Guarantee Program underwriting process will include a comprehensive review of the Eligible CDFI's concentration of sources of funds available for debt service, including the concentration of sources from other Federal programs and level of reliance on said sources, to determine the Eligible CDFI's ability to service the additional debt.
2. In the event that the Eligible CDFI proposes to use other Federal funds to service Bond Loan debt or as Credit Enhancement, the CDFI Fund may require, in its sole discretion, that the Eligible CDFI provide written assurance from such other Federal program, in form that is acceptable to the CDFI Fund and that the CDFI Fund may rely upon, that said use is permissible.
J.
K.
The following requirements apply to all Qualified Issuer Applications and Guarantee Applications submitted under this NOGA, as well as any Qualified Issuer Applications and Guarantee Applications submitted under the FY 2015 NOGA that were neither withdrawn nor declined in FY 2015.
A.
1. In general. By statute and regulation, the Qualified Issuer applicant must be either a Certified CDFI (an entity that has been certified by the CDFI Fund as meeting the CDFI certification requirements set forth in 12 CFR 1805.201) or an entity designated by a Certified CDFI to issue Bonds on its behalf. An Eligible CDFI must be a Certified CDFI as of the Bond Issue Date and must maintain its CDFI certification throughout the term of the corresponding Bond.
2. CDFI Certification requirements. Pursuant to the regulations that govern CDFI certification (12 CFR 1805.201), an entity may be certified if it is a legal entity (meaning, that it has properly filed articles of incorporation or other organizing documents with the State or other appropriate body in the jurisdiction in which it was legally established, as of the date the CDFI Certification Application is submitted) and meets the following requirements:
a. Primary mission requirement (12 CFR 1805.201(b)(1)): To be a Certified CDFI, an entity must have a primary mission of promoting community development, which mission must be consistent with its Target Market. In general, the entity will be found to meet the primary mission requirement if its incorporating documents or board-approved narrative statement (
b. Financing entity requirement (12 CFR 1805.201(b)(2)): To be a Certified CDFI, an entity must demonstrate that its predominant business activity is the provision of Financial Products and Financial Services, Development Services, and/or other similar financing.
i. On April 10, 2015, the CDFI Fund published a revision of 12 CFR 1805.201(b)(2), the section of the CDFI certification regulation that governs the “financing entity” requirement. The regulatory change creates a means for the CDFI Fund, in its discretion, to deem an Affiliate (meaning, in this case, an entity that is Controlled by a CDFI; see 12 CFR 1805.104(b)) to have met the financing entity requirement based on the financing activity or track record of the Controlling CDFI (as Control is defined in 12 CFR 1805.104(q)), solely for the purpose of participating in the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program as an Eligible CDFI.
In order for the Affiliate to rely on the Controlling CDFI's track record, (A) the Controlling CDFI must be a Certified CDFI; (B) there must be an operating agreement that includes management and ownership provisions in effect between the two entities (prior to the submission of a CDFI Certification Application and in form and substance that is acceptable to the CDFI Fund); and (C) the Affiliate must submit a complete CDFI Certification Application to the CDFI Fund no later than February 12, 2016 in order it to be considered for
This regulatory revision affects only the Affiliate's ability to meet the financing entity requirement for purposes of CDFI certification: Said Affiliate must meet the other certification criteria in accordance with the existing regulations governing CDFI certification.
ii. The revised regulation also states that, solely for the purpose of participating in the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, the Affiliate's provision of Financial Products and Financial Services, Development Services, and/or other similar financing transactions need not be arms-length in nature if such transaction is by and between the Affiliate and Controlling CDFI, pursuant to an operating agreement that includes management and ownership provisions and that is effective prior to the submission of a CDFI Certification Application and is in form and substance that is acceptable to the CDFI Fund.
iii. An Affiliate whose CDFI certification is based on the financing activity or track record of a Controlling CDFI is not eligible to receive financial or technical assistance awards or tax credit allocations under any other CDFI Fund program until such time that the Affiliate meets the financing entity requirement based on its own activity or track record.
iv. If an Affiliate elects to satisfy the financing entity requirement based on the financing activity or track record of a Controlling CDFI, and if the CDFI Fund approves such Affiliate as an Eligible CDFI for the purpose of participation in the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, said Affiliate's CDFI certification will terminate if: (A) It does not enter into Bond Loan documents with its Qualified Issuer within one (1) year of the date that it signs the term sheet (which is an exhibit to the Agreement to Guarantee); (B) it ceases to be an Affiliate of the Controlling CDFI; or (C) it ceases to adhere to CDFI certification requirements.
v. An Affiliate electing to satisfy the financing entity requirement based on the financing activity or track record of a Controlling CDFI need not have completed any financing activities prior to the date the CDFI Certification Application is submitted or approved. However, the Affiliate and the Controlling CDFI must have entered into the operating agreement described in (b)(i) above, prior to such date, in form and substance that is acceptable to the CDFI Fund.
c. Target Market requirement (12 CFR 1805.201(b)(3)):
i. To be a Certified CDFI, an entity must serve at least one eligible Target Market (either an Investment Area or a Targeted Population) by directing at least 60% of all of its Financial Product activities to one or more eligible Target Market.
ii. Solely for the purpose of participation as an Eligible CDFI in the FY 2016 application round of the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, an Affiliate of a Controlling CDFI may be deemed to meet the Target Market requirement by virtue of serving either:
(1) An Investment Area through “borrowers or investees” that serve the Investment Area or provide significant benefits to its residents (pursuant to 12 CFR 1805.201(b)(3)(ii)(F)). For purposes of this NOGA, the term “borrower” or “investee” includes a borrower of a loan originated by the Controlling CDFI that has been transferred to the Affiliate as lender (which loan must meet Secondary Loan Requirements), pursuant to an operating agreement with the Affiliate that includes ownership/investment and management provisions, which agreement must be in effect prior to the submission of a CDFI Certification Application and in form and substance that is acceptable to the CDFI Fund. Loans originated by the Controlling CDFI do not need to be transferred prior to application submission; however, such loans must be transferred before certification of the Affiliate is effective. If an Affiliate has more than one Controlling CDFIs, it may meet this Investment Area requirement through one or more of such Controlling CDFIs' Investment Areas; or
(2) a Targeted Population “indirectly or through borrowers or investees that directly serve or provide significant benefits to such members” (pursuant to 12 CFR 1805.201(b)(3)(iii)(B)) if a loan originated by the Controlling CDFI has been transferred to the Affiliate as lender (which loan must meet Secondary Loan Requirements) and the Controlling CDFI's financing entity activities serve the Affiliate's Targeted Population pursuant to an operating agreement that includes ownership/investment and management provisions by and between the Affiliate and the Controlling CDFI, which agreement must be in effect prior to the submission of a CDFI Certification Application and in form and substance that is acceptable to the CDFI Fund. Loans originated by the Controlling CDFI do not need to be transferred prior to application submission; however, such loans must be transferred before certification of the Affiliate is effective. If an Affiliate has more than one Controlling CDFI, it may meet this Targeted Population requirement through one or more of such Controlling CDFIs' Targeted Populations.
(iii) An Affiliate that meets the Target Market requirement through paragraphs (A) or (B) above, is not eligible to receive financial or technical assistance awards or tax credit allocations under any other CDFI Fund program until such time that the Affiliate meets the Target Market requirements based on its own activity or track record.
(iv) If an Affiliate elects to satisfy the target market requirement based on paragraphs (c)(2)(A) or (B) above, the Affiliate and the Controlling CDFI must have entered into the operating agreement described above, prior to the date that the CDFI Certification Application is submitted, in form and substance that is acceptable to the CDFI Fund.
d. Development Services requirement (12 CFR 1805.201(b)(4)): To be a Certified CDFI, an entity must provide Development Services in conjunction with its Financial Products. Solely for the purpose of participation as an Eligible CDFI in the FY 2016 application round of the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, an Affiliate of a Controlling CDFI may be deemed to meet this requirement if: (i) Its Development Services are provided by the Controlling CDFI pursuant to an operating agreement that includes management and ownership provisions with the Controlling CDFI that is effective prior to the submission of a CDFI Certification Application and in form and substance that is acceptable to the CDFI Fund and (ii) the Controlling CDFI must have provided Development Services in conjunction with the transactions that the Affiliate is likely to purchase, prior to the date of submission of the CDFI Certification Application.
e. Accountability requirement (12 CFR 1805.201(b)(5)): To be a Certified CDFI, an entity must maintain accountability to residents of its Investment Area or Targeted Population through representation on its governing board and/or advisory board(s), or through focus groups, community meetings, and/or customer surveys. Solely for the purpose of participation as an Eligible CDFI in the FY 2016 application round of the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, an Affiliate of a Controlling CDFI may be deemed to meet this requirement only if it has a governing board and/or advisory board that has the same composition as the Controlling CDFI and such governing board or advisory board has convened and/or conducted Affiliate business
f. Non-government entity requirement (12 CFR 1805.201(b)(6)): To be a Certified CDFI, an entity can neither be a government entity nor be controlled by one or more governmental entities.
g. For the FY 2016 application round of the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, only one Affiliate per Controlling CDFI may participate as an Eligible CDFI. However, there may be more than one Affiliate participating as an Eligible CDFI in any given Bond Issue.
3. Operating agreement: An operating agreement between an Affiliate and its Controlling CDFI, as described above, must provide, in addition to the elements set forth above, among other items: (i) Conclusory evidence that the Controlling CDFI Controls the Affiliate, through investment and/or ownership; (ii) explanation of all roles, responsibilities and activities to be performed by the Controlling CDFI including, but not limited to, governance, financial management, loan underwriting and origination, record-keeping, insurance, treasury services, human resources and staffing, legal counsel, dispositions, marketing, general administration, and financial reporting; (iii) compensation arrangements; (iv) the term and termination provisions; (v) indemnification provisions; (vi) management and ownership provisions; and (vii) default and recourse provisions.
4. For more detailed information on CDFI certification requirements, please review the CDFI certification regulation (12 CFR 1805.201, as revised on April 10, 2015) and CDFI Certification Application materials/guidance posted on the CDFI Fund's Web site. Interested parties should note that there are specific regulations and requirements that apply to Depository Institution Holding Companies, Insured Depository Institutions, Insured Credit Unions, and State-Insured Credit Unions.
5. Uncertified entities, including an Affiliate of a Controlling CDFI, that wish to apply to be certified and designated as an Eligible CDFI in the FY 2016 application round of the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program must submit a CDFI Certification Application to the CDFI Fund by 5:00 p.m. ET, February 12, 2016. Any CDFI Certification Application received after such date and time, as well as incomplete applications that are not amended by the deadline, will not be considered for the FY 2016 application round of the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program.
6. In no event will the Secretary of the Treasury approve a Guarantee for a Bond from which a Bond Loan will be made to an entity that is not an Eligible CDFI. The Secretary must make FY 2016 Guarantee Application decisions, and the CDFI Fund must close the corresponding Bonds and Bond Loans, prior to the end of FY 2016 (September 30, 2016). Accordingly, it is essential that CDFI Certification Applications are submitted timely and in complete form, with all materials and information needed for the CDFI Fund to make a certification decision. Information on CDFI certification, the CDFI Certification Application, and application submission instructions may be found on the CDFI Fund's Web site at
B.
1. Electronic submission. All Qualified Issuer Applications and Guarantee Applications must be submitted electronically through the CDFI Fund's internet-based myCDFIFund portal, which is accessed via the Awards Management Information System (AMIS). Applications sent by mail, fax, or other form will not be permitted, except in circumstances that the CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, deems acceptable. Please note that Applications will not be accepted through Grants.gov.
2. Applicant identifier numbers. Please note that, pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance (68 FR 38402), each Qualified Issuer applicant and Guarantee applicant must provide, as part of its Application, its Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, as well as DUNS numbers for its proposed Program Administrator, its proposed Servicer, and each Certified CDFI that is included in the Qualified Issuer Application and Guarantee Application. In addition, each Application must include a valid and current Employer Identification Number (EIN), with a letter or other documentation from the IRS confirming the Qualified Issuer applicant's EIN, as well as EINs for its proposed Program Administrator, its proposed Servicer, and each Certified CDFIs that is included in any Application. An Application that does not include such DUNS numbers, EINs and documentation is incomplete and will be rejected by the CDFI Fund. Applicants should allow sufficient time for the IRS and/or Dun and Bradstreet to respond to inquiries and/or requests for the required identification numbers.
3. System for Award Management (SAM). Any entity that needs to create a new account or update its current registration must register for a user account in SAM. Registering with SAM is required for each Qualified Issuer applicant, its proposed Program Administrator, its proposed Servicer, and each Certified CDFI that is included in any Application. The CDFI Fund will not consider any Applications that do not meet the requirement that each entity must be properly registered before the date of Application submission. The CDFI Fund does not manage the SAM registration process, so entities must contact SAM directly for issues related to registration. The CDFI Fund strongly encourages all applicants to ensure that their SAM registration (and the SAM registration for their Program Administrators, Servicers and each Certified CDFI that is included in the Qualified Issuer Application and Guarantee Application) is updated and that their accounts have not expired. For information regarding SAM registration, please visit
4. AMIS accounts. Each Qualified Issuer applicant, its proposed Program Administrator, its proposed Servicer, and each Certified CDFI that is included in the Qualified Issuer Application or Guarantee Application must register User and Organization accounts in AMIS. Each such entity must be registered as an Organization and register at least one (1) User Account in AMIS. As AMIS is the CDFI Fund's primary means of communication with applicants with regard to its programs, each such entity must make sure that it updates the contact information in its AMIS account before any Application is submitted. For more information on AMIS, please visit the AMIS Landing Page at
C.
1. As of the date of this NOGA, the Qualified Issuer Application, the Guarantee Application and related application guidance may be found on the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program's page on the CDFI Fund's Web site at
2. Paperwork Reduction Act. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and an individual is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a valid OMB control number. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Qualified Issuer Application, the Guarantee Application, and the Secondary Loan Requirements
3. Application deadlines. In order to be considered for the issuance of a Guarantee under FY 2016 program authority, Qualified Issuer Applications must be submitted by March 4, 2016 and Guarantee Applications must be submitted by March 18, 2016. Qualified Issuer Applications and Guarantee Applications received in FY 2015 that were neither withdrawn nor declined will be considered under FY 2016 authority. If applicable, CDFI Certification Applications must be received by the CDFI Fund by 5:00 p.m. ET, February 12, 2016.
4. Format. Detailed Qualified Issuer Application and Guarantee Application content requirements are found in the Applications and application guidance. The CDFI Fund will read only information requested in the Application and reserves the right not to read attachments or supplemental materials that have not been specifically requested in this NOGA, the Qualified Issuer or the Guarantee Application. Supplemental materials or attachments such as letters of public support or other statements that are meant to bias or influence the Application review process will not be read.
5. Application revisions. After submitting a Qualified Issuer Application or a Guarantee Application, the applicant will not be permitted to revise or modify the Application in any way unless authorized or requested by the CDFI Fund.
6. Material changes.
a. In the event that there are material changes after the submission of a Qualified Issuer Application prior to the designation as a Qualified Issuer, the applicant must notify the CDFI Fund of such material changes information in a timely and complete manner. The CDFI Fund will evaluate such material changes, along with the Qualified Issuer Application, to approve or deny the designation of the Qualified Issuer.
b. In the event that there are material changes after the submission of a Guarantee Application (including, but not limited to, a revision of the Capital Distribution Plan or a change in the Eligible CDFIs that are included in the Application) prior to or after the designation as a Qualified Issuer or approval of a Guarantee Application or Guarantee, the applicant must notify the CDFI Fund of such material changes information in a timely and complete manner. The Guarantor will evaluate such material changes, along with the Guarantee Application, to approve or deny the Guarantee Application and/or determine whether to modify the terms and conditions of the Agreement to Guarantee. This evaluation may result in a delay of the approval or denial of a Guarantee Application.
D.
E.
F.
1. Pending resolution of noncompliance. If a Qualified Issuer applicant, its proposed Program Administrator, its proposed Servicer, or any of the Certified CDFIs included in the Qualified Issuer Application or Guarantee Application is a prior awardee or allocatee under any CDFI Fund program and (i) it has submitted reports to the CDFI Fund that demonstrate noncompliance with a previously executed agreement with the CDFI Fund, and (ii) the CDFI Fund has yet to make a final determination as to whether the entity is in default of its previously executed agreement, the CDFI Fund will consider the Qualified Issuer Application or Guarantee Application pending full resolution, in the sole determination of the CDFI Fund, of the noncompliance.
2. Previous findings of noncompliance. If a Qualified Issuer applicant, its proposed Program Administrator, its proposed Servicer, or any of the Certified CDFIs included in the Qualified Issuer Application or Guarantee Application is a prior awardee or allocatee under any CDFI Fund program and (i) it has submitted reports to the CDFI Fund that demonstrate noncompliance with a previously executed agreement with the CDFI Fund, and (ii) the CDFI Fund has made a final determination that the entity is noncompliant, but that such noncompliance is not an event of default under the applicable agreement (“Noncompliance, Not in Default of the applicable agreeement” or “NCND”), the CDFI Fund will consider the Qualified Issuer Application or Guarantee Application; however, it is strongly advised that the entity take action to address such noncompliance finding, as repeat findings of Noncompliance, Not in Default may result in a Default finding in future compliance reviews. If a default finding occurs during the period of review of the Application, the applicant and Applications may be deemed ineligible for further review. The CDFI Bond Guarantee Program staff cannot resolve compliance matters: Instead, please contact the CDFI Fund's Certification,
3. Default status. The CDFI Fund will not consider a Qualified Issuer Application or Guarantee Application if the applicant, its proposed Program Administrator, its proposed Servicer, or any of the Certified CDFIs included in the Qualified Issuer Application or Guarantee Application, is a prior awardee or allocatee under any CDFI Fund program and if, as of the date of Qualified Issuer Application or Guarantee Application submission, (i) the CDFI Fund has made a determination that such entity is in default of a previously executed agreement and (ii) the CDFI Fund has provided written notification of such determination to the Qualified Issuer applicant indicating the length of time the default status is effective. Such entities will be ineligible to submit a Qualified Issuer Application, or be included in such submission, as the case may be, so long as the applicant's, its proposed Program Administrator's, its proposed Servicer's, or such Certified CDFI's prior award or allocation remains in default status or such other time period as specified by the CDFI Fund in writing.
4. Undisbursed award funds. The CDFI Fund will not consider a Qualified Issuer Application or Guarantee Application, if the applicant, its proposed Program Administrator, its proposed Servicer, its Affiliate, or any Certified CDFI that is included in the Qualified Issuer Application or Guarantee Application, is an awardee under any CDFI Fund program and has undisbursed award funds (as defined below) as of the Qualified Issuer Application or Guarantee Application submission date. The CDFI Fund will include the combined undisbursed prior awards, as of the date of the Qualified Issuer Application submission, of the applicant, the proposed Program Administrator, the proposed Servicer, and any Certified CDFIs included in the application. For purposes of the calculation of undisbursed award funds for the Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) Program, only awards made to the Qualified Issuer applicant, its proposed Program Administrator, its proposed Servicer, and any Certified CDFI included in the Qualified Issuer Application, three to five calendar years prior to the end of the calendar year of the Qualified Issuer Application submission date are included. For purposes of the calculation of undisbursed award funds for the CDFI Program, the Native American CDFI Assistance (NACA) Program, and the Capital Magnet Fund (CMF), only awards made to the Qualified Issuer applicant, its proposed Program Administrator, its proposed Servicer, and any Certified CDFI included in the Qualified Issuer Application, two to five calendar years prior to the end of the calendar year of the Qualified Issuer Application submission date are included.
Undisbursed awards cannot exceed five percent of the total includable awards for the Applicant's BEA/CDFI/NACA/CMF awards as of the date of submission of the Qualified Issuer Application. The calculation of undisbursed award funds does not include: (i) Tax credit allocation authority made available through the New Markets Tax Credit Program; (ii) any award made available through the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program (iii) any award funds for which the CDFI Fund received a full and complete disbursement request from the awardee by the date of submission of the Qualified Issuer Application; (iv) any award funds for an award that has been terminated in writing by the CDFI Fund or de-obligated by the CDFI Fund; or (v) any award funds for an award that does not have a fully executed assistance or award agreement. The CDFI Fund strongly encourages Qualified Issuer applicants, proposed Program Administrators, proposed Servicers, and any Certified CDFIs included in a Qualified Issuer Application that wish to request disbursements of undisbursed funds from prior awards to provide the CDFI Fund with a complete disbursement request at least 10 business days prior to the date of submission of a Qualified Issuer Application.
G.
H.
I.
The CDFI Fund may also bar from consideration any such entity that has, in any proceeding instituted against it in, by, or before any court, governmental, or administrative body or agency, received a final determination within the last two years indicating that the entity has discriminated on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, marital status, receipt of income from public assistance, religion, or sex, including, but not limited, to discrimination under (i) Title VI of the
J.
K.
A.
1. Qualified Issuer. The Qualified Issuer is a Certified CDFI, or an entity designated by a Certified CDFI to issue Bonds on its behalf, that meets the requirements of the Regulations and this NOGA, and that has been approved by the CDFI Fund pursuant to review and evaluation of its Qualified Issuer Application. The Qualified Issuer will, among other duties: (i) Organize the Eligible CDFIs that have designated it to serve as their Qualified Issuer; (ii) prepare and submit a complete and timely Qualified Issuer and Guarantee Application to the CDFI Fund; (iii) if the Qualified Issuer Application is approved by the CDFI Fund and the Guarantee Application is approved by the Guarantor, prepare the Bond Issue; (iv) manage all Bond Issue servicing, administration, and reporting functions; (v) make Bond Loans; (vi) oversee the financing or refinancing of Secondary Loans; (vii) ensure compliance throughout the duration of the Bond with all provisions of the Regulations, and Bond Documents and Bond Loan Documents entered into between the Guarantor, the Qualified Issuer, and the Eligible CDFI; and (viii) ensure that the Master Servicer/Trustee complies with the Bond Trust Indenture and all other applicable regulations. Further, the role of the Qualified Issuer also is to ensure that its proposed Eligible CDFI applicants possess adequate and well performing assets to support the debt service of the proposed Bond Loan.
2. Qualified Issuer Application. The Qualified Issuer Application is the document that an entity seeking to serve as a Qualified Issuer submits to the CDFI Fund to apply to be approved as a Qualified Issuer prior to consideration of a Guarantee Application.
3. Qualified Issuer Application evaluation, general. Each Qualified Issuer Application will be evaluated by the CDFI Fund and, if acceptable, the applicant will be approved as a Qualified Issuer, in the sole discretion of the CDFI Fund. The CDFI Fund's Qualified Issuer Application review and evaluation process is based on established procedures, which may include interviews of applicants and/or site visits to applicants conducted by the CDFI Fund. Through the Application review process, the CDFI Fund will evaluate Qualified Issuer applicants on a merit basis and in a fair and consistent manner. Each Qualified Issuer applicant will be reviewed on its ability to successfully carry out the responsibilities of a Qualified Issuer throughout the life of the Bond. The Applicant must currently meet the criteria established in the Regulations to be deemed a Qualified Issuer. Qualified Issuer Applications that are forward-looking or speculate as to the eventual acquisition of the required capabilities and criteria are unlikely to be approved. Qualified Issuer Application processing will be initiated in chronological order by date of receipt; however, Qualified Issuer Applications that are incomplete or require the CDFI Fund to request additional or clarifying information may delay the ability of the CDFI Fund to deem the Qualified Application complete and move it to the next phase of review. Submitting a substantially incomplete application earlier than other applicants does not ensure first approval.
B.
1. CDFI certification requirements. The Qualified Issuer applicant must be a Certified CDFI or an entity designated by a Certified CDFI to issue Bonds on its behalf.
2. Designation and attestation by Certified CDFIs. An entity seeking to be approved by the CDFI Fund as a Qualified Issuer must be designated as a Qualified Issuer by at least one Certified CDFI. A Qualified Issuer may not designate itself. The Qualified Issuer applicant will prepare and submit a complete and timely Qualified Issuer Application to the CDFI Fund in accordance with the requirements of the Regulations, this NOGA, and the Application. A Certified CDFI must attest in the Qualified Issuer Application that it has designated the Qualified Issuer to act on its behalf and that the information in the Qualified Issuer Application regarding it is true, accurate and complete.
C.
1. Substantive review
a. If the CDFI Fund determines that the Qualified Issuer Application is complete and eligible, the CDFI Fund will undertake a substantive review in accordance with the criteria and procedures described in the Regulations, this NOGA, the Qualified Issuer Application, and CDFI Bond Guarantee Program policies.
b. As part of the substantive evaluation process, the CDFI Fund reserves the right to contact the Qualified Issuer applicant (as well as its proposed Program Administrator, its proposed Servicer, and each designating Certified CDFI in the Qualified Issuer
2. Qualified Issuer criteria. In total, there are more than 60 individual criteria or sub-criteria used to evaluate a Qualified Issuer applicant and all materials provided in the Qualified Issuer Application will be used to evaluate the applicant. Qualified Issuer determinations will be made based on Qualified Issuer applicants' experience and expertise, in accordance with the following criteria:
a. Organizational capability.
i. The Qualified Issuer applicant must demonstrate that it has the appropriate expertise, capacity, experience, and qualifications to issue Bonds for Eligible Purposes, or is otherwise qualified to serve as Qualified Issuer, as well as manage the Bond Issue on the terms and conditions set forth in the Regulations, this NOGA, and the Bond Documents, satisfactory to the CDFI Fund.
ii. The Qualified Issuer applicant must demonstrate that it has the appropriate expertise, capacity, experience and qualifications to originate, underwrite, service and monitor Bond Loans for Eligible Purposes, targeted to Low-Income Areas and Underserved Rural Areas.
iii. The Qualified Issuer applicant must demonstrate that it has the appropriate expertise, capacity, experience and qualifications to manage the disbursement process set forth in the Regulations at 12 CFR 1808.302 and 1808.307.
b. Servicer. The Qualified Issuer applicant must demonstrate that it has (either directly or contractually through another designated entity) the appropriate expertise, capacity, experience and qualifications, or is otherwise qualified to serve as Servicer. The Qualified Issuer Application must provide information that demonstrates that the Qualified Issuer's Servicer has the expertise, capacity, experience and qualifications necessary to perform certain required administrative duties (including, but not limited to, Bond Loan servicing functions).
c. Program Administrator. The Qualified Issuer applicant must demonstrate that it has (either directly or contractually through another designated entity) the appropriate expertise, capacity, experience and qualifications, or is otherwise qualified to serve as Program Administrator. The Qualified Issuer Application must provide information that demonstrates that the Qualified Issuer's Program Administrator has the expertise, capacity, experience and qualifications necessary to perform certain required administrative duties (including, but not limited to, compliance monitoring and reporting functions).
d. Strategic alignment. The Qualified Issuer applicant will be evaluated on its strategic alignment with the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program on factors that include, but are not limited to: (i) Its mission's strategic alignment with community and economic development objectives set forth in the Riegle Act at 12 U.S.C. 4701; (ii) its strategy for deploying the entirety of funds that may become available to the Qualified Issuer through the proposed Bond Issue; (iii) its experience providing up to 30-year capital to CDFIs or other borrowers in Low-Income Areas or Underserved Rural Areas as such terms are defined in the Regulations at 12 CFR 1808.102; (iv) its track record of activities relevant to its stated strategy; and (v) other factors relevant to the Qualified Issuer's strategic alignment with the program.
e. Experience. The Qualified Issuer applicant will be evaluated on factors that demonstrate that it has previous experience: (i) Performing the duties of a Qualified Issuer including issuing bonds, loan servicing, program administration, underwriting, financial reporting, and loan administration; (ii) lending in Low-Income Areas and Underserved Rural Areas; and (iii) indicating that the Qualified Issuer's current principals and team members have successfully performed the required duties, and that previous experience is applicable to the current principals and team members.
f. Management and staffing. The Qualified Issuer applicant must demonstrate that it has sufficiently strong management and staffing capacity to undertake the duties of Qualified Issuer. The applicant must also demonstrate that its proposed Program Administrator and its proposed Servicer have sufficiently strong management and staffing capacity to undertake their respective requirements under the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program. Strong management and staffing capacity is evidenced by factors that include, but are not limited to: (i) A sound track record of delivering on past performance; (ii) a documented succession plan; (iii) organizational stability including staff retention; and (iv) a clearly articulated, reasonable and well-documented staffing plan.
g. Financial strength. The Qualified Issuer applicant must demonstrate the strength of its financial capacity and activities including, among other items, financially sound business practices relative to the industry norm for bond issuers, as evidenced by reports of Appropriate Federal Banking Agencies, Appropriate State Agencies, or auditors. Such financially sound business practices will demonstrate: (i) The financial wherewithal to perform activities related to the Bond Issue such as administration and servicing; (ii) the ability to originate, underwrite, close, and disburse loans in a prudent manner; (iii) whether the applicant is depending on external funding sources and the reliability of long-term access to such funding; (iv) whether there are foreseeable counterparty issues or credit concerns that are likely to affect the applicant's financial stability; and (v) a budget that reflects reasonable assumptions about upfront costs as well as ongoing expenses and revenues.
h. Systems and information technology. The Qualified Issuer applicant must demonstrate that it (as well as its proposed Program Administrator and its proposed Servicer) has, among other things: (i) A strong information technology capacity and the ability to manage loan servicing, administration, management and document retention; (ii) appropriate office infrastructure and related technology to carry out the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program activities; and (iii) sufficient backup and disaster recovery systems to maintain uninterrupted business operations.
i. Pricing structure. The Qualified Issuer applicant must provide its proposed pricing structure for performing the duties of Qualified Issuer, including the pricing for the roles of Program Administrator and Servicer. Although the pricing structure and fees shall be decided by negotiation between market participants without interference or approval by the CDFI Fund, the CDFI Fund will evaluate whether the Qualified Issuer applicant's proposed pricing structure is feasible to carry out the responsibilities of a Qualified Issuer over the life of the Bond and sound implementation of the program.
j. Other criteria. The Qualified Issuer applicant must meet such other criteria as may be required by the CDFI Fund, as set forth in the Qualified Issuer Application or required by the CDFI Fund in its sole discretion, for the
k. Third-party data sources. The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may consider information from third-party sources including, but not limited to, periodicals or publications, publicly available data sources, or subscriptions services for additional information about the Qualified Issuer applicant, the proposed Program Administrator, the proposed Servicer and each Certified CDFI that is included in the Qualified Issuer Application. Any additional information received from such third-party sources will be reviewed and evaluated through a systematic and formalized process.
D.
E.
A.
1. Guarantee Application.
a. The Guarantee Application is the application document that a Qualified Issuer (in collaboration with the Eligible CDFI(s) that seek to be included in the proposed Bond Issue) must submit to the CDFI Fund in order to apply for a Guarantee. The Qualified Issuer shall provide all required information in its Guarantee Application to establish that it meets all criteria set forth in the Regulations at 12 CFR 1808.501 and this NOGA and can carry out all CDFI Bond Guarantee Program requirements including, but not limited to, information that demonstrates that the Qualified Issuer has the appropriate expertise, capacity, and experience and is qualified to make, administer and service Bond Loans for Eligible Purposes.
b. The Guarantee Application comprises a Capital Distribution Plan and at least one Secondary Capital Distribution Plan, as well as all other requirements set forth in this NOGA or as may be required by the Guarantor and the CDFI Fund in their sole discretion, for the evaluation and selection of Guarantee applicants.
2. Guarantee Application evaluation, general. The Guarantee Application review and evaluation process will be based on established standard procedures, which may include interviews of applicants and/or site visits to applicants conducted by the CDFI Fund. Through the Application review process, the CDFI Fund will evaluate Guarantee applicants on a merit basis and in a fair and consistent manner. Each Guarantee applicant will be reviewed on its ability to successfully implement and carry out the activities proposed in its Guarantee Application throughout the life of the Bond. Eligible CDFIs must currently meet the criteria established in the Regulations to participate in the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program. Guarantee Applications that are forward-looking or speculate as to the eventual acquisition of the required capabilities and criteria by the Eligible CDFI(s) are unlikely to be approved. Guarantee Application processing will be initiated in chronological order by date of receipt; however, Guarantee Applications that are incomplete or require the CDFI Fund to request additional or clarifying information may delay the ability of the CDFI Fund to deem the Guarantee Application complete and move it to the next phase of review. Submitting a substantially incomplete application earlier than other applicants does not ensure first approval.
B.
1. Eligibility; CDFI certification requirements. If approved for a Guarantee, each Eligible CDFI must be a Certified CDFI as of the Bond Issue Date and must maintain its respective CDFI certification throughout the term of the corresponding Bond. For more information on CDFI Certification and the certification of affiliated entities, including the deadlines for submission of certification applications, see part II of this NOGA.
2. Qualified Issuer as Eligible CDFI. A Qualified Issuer may not participate as an Eligible CDFI within its own Bond Issue, but may participate as an Eligible CDFI in a Bond Issue managed by another Qualified Issuer.
3. Attestation by proposed Eligible CDFIs. Each proposed Eligible CDFI must attest in the Guarantee Application that it has designated the Qualified Issuer to act on its behalf and that the information pertaining to the Eligible CDFI in the Guarantee Application is true, accurate and complete. Each proposed Eligible CDFI must also attest in the Guarantee Application that it will use Bond Loan proceeds for Eligible Purposes and that Secondary Loans will be financed or refinanced in accordance with the applicable Secondary Loan Requirements.
C.
D.
1. Substantive review.
a. If the CDFI Fund determines that the Guarantee Application is complete and eligible, the CDFI Fund will undertake a substantive review in accordance with the criteria and procedures described in the Regulations
b. As part of the substantive review process, the CDFI Fund may contact the Qualified Issuer (as well as the proposed Eligible CDFIs included in the Guarantee Application) by telephone, email, mail, or through an on-site visit for the sole purpose of obtaining additional, clarifying, confirming, or supplemental application information. The CDFI Fund reserves the right to collect such additional, clarifying, confirming or supplemental information as it deems appropriate. If contacted for additional, clarifying, confirming, or supplemental information, said entities must respond within the time parameters set by the CDFI Fund or the Guarantee Application will be rejected.
2. Guarantee Application criteria.
a. In general, a Guarantee Application will be evaluated based on the strength and feasibility of the proposed Bond Issue, as well as the creditworthiness and performance of the Qualified Issuer and the proposed Eligible CDFIs. Guarantee Applications must demonstrate that each proposed Eligible CDFI has the capacity for its respective Bond Loan to be a secured, general recourse obligation of the proposed Eligible CDFI and to deploy the Bond Loan proceeds within the required disbursement timeframe as described in the Regulations. Unless receiving significant third-party support, support from a Controlling CDFI, or Credit Enhancements, Eligible CDFIs should not request Bond Loans greater than their current total asset size or which would otherwise significantly impair their net asset or net equity position. In general, an applicant requesting a Bond Loan more than 50 percent of its total asset size should be prepared to clearly demonstrate that it has a reasonable plan to scale its operations prudently and in a manner that does not impair its net asset or net equity position. Further, an entity with a limited operating history or a history of operating losses is unlikely to meet the strength and feasibility requirements of the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, unless it receives significant third-party support, support from a Controlling CDFI, or Credit Enhancements.
b. The Capital Distribution Plan must demonstrate the Qualified Issuer's comprehensive plan for lending, disbursing, servicing and monitoring each Bond Loan in the Bond Issue. It includes, among other information, the following components:
i. Statement of Proposed Sources and Uses of Funds: Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulations at 12 CFR1808.102(bb) and 1808.301, the Qualified Issuer must provide: (A) A description of the overall plan for the Bond Issue; (B) a description of the proposed uses of Bond Proceeds and proposed sources of funds to repay principal and interest on the proposed Bond and Bond Loans; (C) a certification that 100 percent of the principal amount of the proposed Bond will be used to make Bond Loans for Eligible Purposes on the Bond Issue Date; and (D) description of the extent to which the proposed Bond Loans will serve Low-Income Areas or Underserved Rural Areas;
ii. Bond Issue Qualified Issuer cash flow model: The Qualified Issuer must provide a cash flow model displaying the orderly repayment of the Bond and the Bond Loans according to their respective terms. The cash flow model shall include disbursement and repayment of Bonds, Bond Loans, and Secondary Loans. The cash flow model shall match the aggregated cash flows from the Secondary Capital Distribution Plans of each of the underlying Eligible CDFIs in the Bond Issue pool. Such information must describe the expected distribution of asset classes to which each Eligible CDFI expects to disburse funds, the proposed disbursement schedule, quarterly or semi-annual amortization schedules, interest-only periods, maturity date of each advance of funds, and assumed net interest margin on Secondary Loans above the assumed Bond Loan rate;
iii. Organizational capacity: If not submitted concurrently, the Qualified Issuer must attest that no material changes have occurred since the time that it submitted the Qualified Issuer Application;
iv. Credit Enhancement (if applicable): The Qualified Issuer must provide information about the adequacy of proposed risk mitigation provisions designed to protect the financial interests of the Federal Government, either directly or indirectly through supporting the financial strength of the Bond Issue. This includes, but is not limited to, the amount and quality of any Credit Enhancements, terms and specific conditions such as renewal options, and any limiting conditions or revocability by the provider of the Credit Enhancement. For any third-party providing a Credit Enhancement, the Qualified Issuer must provide the most recent three years of audited financial statements and a brief analysis of the creditworthiness of such entity. Any Credit Enhancement must be pledged, as part of the Trust Estate, to the Master Servicer/Trustee for the benefit of the Federal Financing Bank;
v. Proposed Term Sheets: For each Eligible CDFI that is part of the proposed Bond Issue, the Qualified Issuer must submit a proposed Term Sheet using the template provided on the CDFI Fund's Web site. The proposed Term Sheet must clearly state all relevant and critical terms of the proposed Bond Loan including, but not limited to: Any requested prepayment provisions, unique conditions precedent, proposed covenants and exact amounts/percentages for determining the Eligible CDFI's ability to meet program requirements, and terms and exact language describing any Credit Enhancements. Terms may be either altered and/or negotiated by the CDFI Fund in its sole discretion, based on the proposed structure in the application, to ensure that adequate protection is in place for the Guarantor;
vi. Secondary Capital Distribution Plan(s): Each proposed Eligible CDFI must provide a comprehensive plan for financing, disbursing, servicing and monitoring Secondary Loans, address how each proposed Secondary Loan will meet Eligible Purposes, and address such other requirements listed below that may be required by the Guarantor and the CDFI Fund. For each proposed Eligible CDFI relying, for CDFI certification purposes, on the financing entity activity of a Controlling CDFI, the Controlling CDFI must describe how the Eligible CDFI and the Controlling CDFI, together, will meet the requirements listed below:
(A) Narrative and Statement of Proposed Sources and Uses of Funds: Each Eligible CDFI will: (1) Provide a description of proposed uses of funds, including the extent to which Bond Loans will serve Low-Income Areas or Underserved Rural Areas, and the extent to which Bond Loan proceeds will be used (i) to make the first monthly installment of a Bond Loan payment, (ii) pay Issuance Fees up to one percent of the Bond Loan, and (iii) finance Loan
(B) Eligible CDFI cash flow model: Each Eligible CDFI must provide a cash flow model of the proposed Bond Loan which: (1) Matches each Eligible CDFI's portion of the Qualified Issuer's cash flow model; and (2) tracks the flow of funds through the term of the Bond Issue and demonstrates disbursement and repayment of the Bond Loan, Secondary Loans, and any utilization of the Relending Fund, if applicable. Such information must describe: The expected distribution of asset classes to which each Eligible CDFI expects to disburse funds, the proposed disbursement schedule, quarterly or semi-annual amortization schedules, interest-only periods, maturity date of each advance of funds, and the assumed net interest margin on Secondary Loans above the assumed Bond Loan rate;
(C) Organizational capacity: Each Eligible CDFI must provide documentation indicating the ability of the Eligible CDFI to manage its Bond Loan including, but not limited to: (1) Organizational ownership and a chart of affiliates; (2) organizational documents, including policies and procedures related to loan underwriting and asset management; (3) management or operating agreement, if applicable; (4) an analysis by management of its ability to manage the funding, monitoring, and collection of loans being contemplated with the proceeds of the Bond Loan; (5) information about its board of directors; (6) a governance narrative; (7) description of senior management and employee base; (8) independent reports, if available; (9) strategic plan or related progress reports; and (10) a discussion of the management and information systems used by the Eligible CDFI;
(D) Policies and procedures: Each Eligible CDFI must provide relevant policies and procedures including, but not limited to: A copy of the asset-liability matching policy, if applicable; and loan policies and procedures which address topics including, but not limited to: Origination, underwriting, credit approval, interest rates, closing, documentation, asset management, and portfolio monitoring, risk-rating definitions, charge-offs, and loan loss reserve methodology;
(E) Financial statements: Each Eligible CDFI must provide information about the Eligible CDFI's current and future financial position, including but not limited to: (1) Most recent four years of audited financial statements; (2) current year-to-date or interim financial statement; (3) a copy of the current year's approved budget or projected budget if the entity's Board has not yet approved such budget; (4) a three year operating projection; and (5) a three year forecast of the statement of financial position or balance sheet, statement of activities or income statement, and statement of cash flows in the standardized template provided by the CDFI Fund;
(F) Loan portfolio information: Each Eligible CDFI must provide information including, but not limited to: (1) Loan portfolio quality report; (2) pipeline report; (3) portfolio listing; (4) a description of other loan assets under management; (5) loan products; (6) independent loan review report; (7) impact report case studies; and (8) a loan portfolio by risk rating and loan loss reserves; and
(G) Funding sources and financial activity information: Each Eligible CDFI must provide information including, but not limited to: (1) Current grant information; (2) funding projections; (3) credit enhancements; (4) historical investor renewal rates; (5) covenant compliance; (6) off-balance sheet contingencies; (7) earned revenues; and (8) debt capital statistics.
vii. Assurances and certifications that not less than 100 percent of the principal amount of Bonds will be used to make Bond Loans for Eligible Purposes beginning on the Bond Issue Date, and that Secondary Loans shall be made as set forth in subsection 1808.307(b); and
viii. Such other information that the Guarantor, the CDFI Fund and/or the Bond Purchaser may deem necessary and appropriate.
c. The CDFI Fund will use the information described in the Capital Distribution Plan and Secondary Capital Distribution Plan(s) to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed Bond Issue, with specific attention paid to each Eligible CDFI's financial strength and organizational capacity. For each proposed Eligible CDFI relying, for CDFI certification purposes, on the financing entity activity of a Controlling CDFI, the CDFI Fund will pay specific attention to the Controlling CDFI's financial strength and organizational capacity as well as the operating agreement between the proposed Eligible CDFI and the Controlling CDFI. All materials provided in the Guarantee Application will be used to evaluate the proposed Bond Issue. In total, there are more than 100 individual criteria or sub-criteria used to evaluate each Eligible CDFI. Specific criteria used to evaluate each Eligible CDFI shall include, but not be limited to the following criteria below. For each proposed Eligible CDFI relying, for CDFI certification purposes, on the financing entity activity of a Controlling CDFI, the following specific criteria will also be used to evaluate both the proposed Eligible CDFI and the Controlling CDFI:
i. Historical financial ratios: Ratios which together have been shown to be predictive of possible future default will be used as an initial screening tool, including total asset size, net asset or Tier 1 Core Capital ratio, self-sufficiency ratio, non-performing asset ratio, liquidity ratio, reserve over nonperforming assets, and yield cost spread;
ii. Quantitative and qualitative attributes under the “CAMEL” framework: After initial screening, the CDFI Fund will utilize a more detailed analysis under the “CAMEL” framework, including but not limited to:
(A) Capital Adequacy: Attributes such as the debt-to-equity ratio, status and significance of off-balance sheet liabilities or contingencies, magnitude and consistency of cash flow performance, exposure to affiliates for financial and operating support, trends in changes to capitalization, and other relevant attributes;
(B) Asset Quality: Attributes such as the charge-off ratio, adequacy of loan loss reserves, sector concentration, borrower concentration, asset composition, security and collateralization of the loan portfolio, trends in changes to asset quality, and other relevant attributes;
(C) Management: Attributes such as documented best practices in governance, strategic planning and board involvement, robust policies and
(D) Earnings and Performance: Attributes such as net operating margins, deployment of funds, self-sufficiency, trends in earnings, and other relevant attributes;
(E) Liquidity: Attributes such as unrestricted cash and cash equivalents, ability to access credit facilities, access to grant funding, covenant compliance, affiliate relationships, concentration of funding sources, trends in liquidity, and other relevant attributes;
iii. Forecast performance and other relevant criteria: The CDFI Fund will stress test each Eligible CDFI's forecasted performance under scenarios that are specific to the unique circumstance and attributes of the organization. Additionally, the CDFI Fund will consider other relevant criteria that have not been adequately captured in the preceding steps as part of the due diligence process. Such criteria may include, but not be limited to, the size and quality of any third-party Credit Enhancements or other forms of support.
(A) Overcollateralization: The commitment by an Eligible CDFI to over-collateralize a proposed Bond Loan with excess Secondary Loans is a criterion that may affect the viability of a Guarantee Application by decreasing the estimated net present value of the long-term cost of the Guarantee to the Federal Government, by decreasing the probability of default, and/or increasing the recovery rate in the event of default. An Eligible CDFI committing to overcollateralization may not be required to deposit funds in the Relending Account, subject to the maintenance of certain unique requirements that are detailed in the template Agreement to Guarantee and Bond Loan Agreement.
(B) Credit Enhancements: The provision of third-party Credit Enhancements, including any Credit Enhancement from a Controlling CDFI or any other affiliated entity, is a criterion that may affect the viability of a Guarantee Application by decreasing the estimated net present value of the long-term cost of the Guarantee to the Federal Government. Credit Enhancements are considered in the context of the structure and circumstances of each Guarantee Application.
(C) On-Site Review: The CDFI Fund may request an on-site review of an Eligible CDFI to confirm materials provided in the written application, as well as to gather additional due diligence information. The on-site reviews are a critical component of the application review process and will generally be conducted for all applicants not regulated by an Appropriate Federal Banking Agency or Appropriate State Agency. The CDFI Fund reserves the right to conduct a site visit of regulated entities, in its sole discretion.
(D) Secondary Loan Asset Classes: Eligible CDFIs that propose to use funds for new products or lines of business must demonstrate that they have the organizational capacity to manage such activities in a prudent manner. Failure to demonstrate such organizational capacity may be factored into the consideration of Asset Quality or Management criteria as listed above in this section.
3. Credit subsidy cost. The credit subsidy cost is the net present value of the estimated long-term cost of the Guarantee to the Federal Government as determined under the applicable provisions of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as amended (FCRA). Treasury has not received appropriated amounts from Congress to cover the credit subsidy costs associated with the Guarantees issued pursuant to this NOGA. In accordance with FCRA, Treasury must consult with, and obtain the approval of, OMB for Treasury's calculation of the credit subsidy cost of each Guarantee prior to entering into any Agreement to Guarantee.
E.
1. The Guarantor, in the Guarantor's sole discretion, may approve a Guarantee, after consideration of the recommendation from the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program's Credit Review Board and/or based on the merits of the Guarantee Application. The Guarantor shall approve or deny a Guarantee Application no later than 90 days after the date the Guarantee Application was advanced for substantive review.
2. The Guarantor reserves the right to approve Guarantees, in whole or in part, in response to any, all, or none of the Guarantee Applications submitted in response to this NOGA. The Guarantor also reserves the right to approve any Guarantees in an amount that is less than requested in the corresponding Guarantee Application. Pursuant to the Regulations at 12 CFR 1808.504(c), the Guarantor may limit the number of Guarantees made per year to ensure that a sufficient examination of Guarantee Applications is conducted.
3. The CDFI Fund will notify the Qualified Issuer in writing of the Guarantor's approval or disapproval of a Guarantee Application. If approved for a Guarantee, the Qualified Issuer will enter into an Agreement to Guarantee, which will include a term sheet that will be signed by each Eligible CDFI.
4. Following the execution and delivery of the Agreement to Guarantee (and the respective term sheets), the parties will proceed to the Bond Issue Date, when the parties will sign and enter into the remaining Bond Documents and Bond Loan documents.
5. Please note that the most recently dated templates of Bond Documents and Bond Loan documents that are posted on the CDFI Fund's Web site will not be substantially revised or negotiated prior to closing of the Bond and Bond Loan and issuance of the corresponding Guarantee. If a Qualified Issuer or a proposed Eligible CDFI does not understand the terms and conditions of the Bond Documents or Bond Loan documents (including those listed in Section II.G., above), it should ask questions or seek technical assistance from the CDFI Fund. However, if a Qualified Issuer or a proposed Eligible CDFI disagrees or is uncomfortable with any term/condition, or if legal counsel to either cannot provide a legal opinion in substantially the same form and content of the required legal opinion, it should not apply for a Guarantee.
6. The Guarantee shall not be effective until the Guarantor signs and delivers the Guarantee.
F.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Eligible CDFIs must execute Secondary Loan documents (in the form of promissory notes) with Secondary Borrowers as follows: (i) No later than 12 months after the Bond Issue Date, Secondary Loan documents representing at least 50 percent of the Bond Loan proceeds allocated for Secondary Loans, and (ii) no later than 24 months after the Bond Issue Date, Secondary Loan documents representing 100 percent of the Bond Loan proceeds allocated for Secondary Loans. In the event that the Eligible CDFI does not comply with the foregoing requirements of clauses (i) or (ii) of this paragraph, the available Bond Loan proceeds at the end of the applicable period shall be reduced by an amount equal to the difference between the amount required by clauses (i) or (ii) for the applicable period minus the amount previously committed to the Secondary Loans in the applicable period. Secondary Loans shall carry loan maturities suitable to the loan purpose and be consistent with loan-to-value requirements set forth in the Secondary Loan Requirements. Secondary Loan maturities shall not exceed the corresponding Bond or Bond Loan maturity date. It is the expectation of the CDFI Fund that interest rates for the Secondary Loans will be reasonable based on the borrower and loan characteristics.
E.
1. The Regulations state that Secondary Loans must be secured by a first lien of the Eligible CDFI on pledged collateral, in accordance with the Regulations (at 12 CFR 1808.307(f)) and within certain parameters. Examples of acceptable forms of collateral may include, but are not limited to: Real property (including land and structures), leasehold mortgages, machinery, equipment and movables, cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, letters of credit, inventory, fixtures, contracted revenue streams from non-Federal counterparties, provided the Secondary Borrower pledges all assets, rights and interests necessary to generate such revenue stream, and a Principal Loss Collateral Provision. Intangible assets, such as customer relationships, intellectual property rights, and to-be-constructed real estate improvements, are not acceptable forms of collateral.
2. The Regulations require that Bond Loans must be secured by a first lien on a collateral assignment of Secondary Loans, and further that the Secondary Loans must be secured by a first lien or parity lien on acceptable collateral.
3. Valuation of the collateral pledged by the Secondary Borrower must be based on the Eligible CDFI's credit policy guidelines and must conform to the standards set forth in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) and the Secondary Loan Requirements.
4. Independent third-party appraisals are required for the following collateral: Real estate, leasehold interests, fixtures, machinery and equipment, movables stock valued in excess of $250,000, and contracted revenue stream from non-Federal creditworthy counterparties. Secondary Loan collateral shall be valued using the cost approach, net of depreciation and shall be required for the following: Accounts receivable, machinery, equipment and movables, and fixtures.
F.
G.
1. In order to achieve the statutory zero-credit subsidy constraint of the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program and to avoid a call on the Guarantee, Eligible CDFIs are encouraged to include Credit Enhancements and Principal Loss Collateral Provisions structured to protect the financial interests of the Federal Government. Any Credit Enhancement or Principal Loss Collateral Provision must be pledged, as part of the Trust Estate, to the Master Servicer/Trustee for the benefit of the Federal Financing Bank.
2. Credit Enhancements may include, but are not limited to, payment guarantees from third parties or Affiliate(s), non-Federal capital, lines or letters of credit, or other pledges of financial resources that enhance the Eligible CDFI's ability to make timely interest and principal payments under the Bond Loan.
3. As distinct from Credit Enhancements, Principal Loss Collateral Provisions may be provided in lieu of pledged collateral and in addition to pledged collateral. A Principal Loss Collateral Provision shall be in the form of cash or cash equivalent guarantees from non-Federal capital in amounts necessary to secure the Eligible CDFI's obligations under the Bond Loan after exercising other remedies for default. For example, a Principal Loss Collateral Provision may include a deficiency guarantee whereby another entity assumes liability after other default remedies have been exercised, and covers the deficiency incurred by the creditor. The Principal Loss Collateral Provision shall, at a minimum, provide for the provision of cash or cash equivalents in an amount that is not less than the difference between the value of the collateral and the amount of the accelerated Bond Loan outstanding.
4. In all cases, acceptable Credit Enhancements or Principal Loss Collateral Provisions shall be proffered by creditworthy providers and shall provide information about the adequacy of the facility in protecting the financial interests of the Federal Government, either directly or indirectly through supporting the financial strength of the Bond Issue. This includes, but is not limited to, the amount and quality of any Credit Enhancements, the financial strength of the provider of the Credit Enhancement, the terms, specific conditions such as renewal options, and any limiting conditions or revocability by the provider of the Credit Enhancement.
5. For Secondary Loans benefitting from a Principal Loss Collateral Provision (
6. If the Principal Loss Collateral Provision is provided by a financial institution that is regulated by an Appropriate Federal Banking Agency or an Appropriate State Agency, the guaranteeing institution must demonstrate performance of financially sound business practices relative to the industry norm for providers of collateral enhancements as evidenced by reports of Appropriate Federal Banking Agencies, Appropriate State Agencies, and auditors, as appropriate.
H.
1. Reports.
a. General. As required pursuant to the Regulations at 12 CFR 1808.619, and as set forth in the Bond Documents and the Bond Loan documents, the CDFI Fund will collect information from each Qualified Issuer which may include, but will not be limited to: (i) Quarterly and annual financial reports and data (including an OMB single audit, as applicable) for the purpose of monitoring the financial health, ratios and covenants of Eligible CDFIs that include asset quality (nonperforming assets, loan loss reserves, and net charge-off ratios), liquidity (current ratio, working capital, and operating liquidity ratio), solvency (capital ratio, self-sufficiency, fixed charge, leverage, and debt service coverage ratios); (ii) annual reports as to the compliance of the Qualified Issuer and Eligible CDFIs with the Regulations and specific requirements of the Bond Documents and Bond Loan documents; (iii) monthly reports on uses of Bond Loan proceeds and Secondary Loan proceeds; (iv) Master Servicer/Trustee summary of program accounts and transactions for each Bond Issue; (v) Secondary Loan certifications describing Eligible CDFI lending, collateral valuation, and eligibility; (vi) financial data on Secondary Loans to monitor underlying collateral, gauge overall risk exposure across asset classes, and assess loan performance, quality, and payment history; (vii) annual certifications of compliance with program requirements; (viii) material event disclosures including any reports of Eligible CDFI management and/or organizational changes; (ix) annual updates to the Capital Distribution Plan (as described below); (x) supplements and/or clarifications to correct reporting errors (as applicable); (xi) project level reports to understand overall program impact and the manner in which Bond Proceeds are deployed for Eligible Community or Economic Development Purposes; and (xii) such other information that the CDFI Fund and/or the Bond Purchaser may require, including but not limited to racial and ethnic data showing the extent to which members of minority groups are beneficiaries of the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, to the extent permissible by law.
b. Additional reporting by Qualified Issuers. A Qualified Issuer receiving a Guarantee shall submit annual updates to the approved Capital Distribution Plan, including an updated Proposed
c. Change of Secondary Loan asset classes. Any Eligible CDFI seeking to expand the allowable Secondary Loan asset classes beyond what was approved by the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program's Credit Review Board or make other deviations that could potentially result in a modification, as that term is defined in OMB Circulars A-11 and A-129, must receive approval from the CDFI Fund before the Eligible CDFI can begin to enact the proposed changes. The CDFI Fund will consider whether the Eligible CDFI possesses or has acquired the appropriate systems, personnel, leadership, and financial capacity to implement the revised Capital Distribution Plan. The CDFI Fund will also consider whether these changes assist the Eligible CDFI in generating impacts in Low-Income or Underserved Rural Areas. Such changes will be reviewed by the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program and presented to the Credit Review Board for approval, and appropriate consultation will be made with OMB to ensure compliance with OMB Circulars A-11 and A-129, prior to notifying the Eligible CDFI if such changes are acceptable under the terms of the Bond Loan Agreement. An Eligible CDFI may request such an update to its Capital Distribution Plan prior to Bond Issue Closing, and thereafter may only request such an update once per the Eligible CDFI's fiscal year.
d. Reporting by Affiliates and Controlling CDFIs. In the case of an Eligible CDFI relying, for CDFI certification purposes, on the financing entity activity of a Controlling CDFI, the CDFI Fund will require that the Affiliate and Controlling CDFI provide certain joint reports, including but not limited to those listed in subparagraph 2(a) above.
e. Detailed information on specific reporting requirements and the format, frequency, and methods by which this information will be transmitted to the CDFI Fund will be provided to Qualified Issuers, Program Administrators, Servicers, and Eligible CDFIs through the Bond Loan Agreement, correspondence, and webinar trainings, and/or scheduled outreach sessions.
f. Reporting requirements will be enforced through the Agreement to Guarantee and the Bond Loan Agreement, and will contain a valid OMB control number pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, as applicable.
g. Each Qualified Issuer will be responsible for the timely and complete submission of the annual reporting documents, including such information that must be provided by other entities such as Eligible CDFIs or Secondary Borrowers. If such other entities are required to provide annual report information or documentation, or other documentation that the CDFI Fund may require, the Qualified Issuer will be responsible for ensuring that the information is submitted timely and complete. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CDFI Fund reserves the right to contact such entities and require that additional information and documentation be provided directly to the CDFI Fund.
h. Annual Assessments. Each Qualified Issuer and Eligible CDFI will be required to have an independent third-party conduct an Annual Assessment of its Bond Loan portfolio. The Annual Assessment is intended to support the CDFI Fund's annual monitoring of the Bond Loan portfolio and to collect financial health, internal control, investment impact measurement methodology information related to the Eligible CDFIs. This assessment is consistent with the program's requirements for Compliance Management and Monitoring (CMM) and Portfolio Management and Loan Monitoring (PMLM), and will be required pursuant to the Bond Documents and the Bond Loan documents. The assessment will also add to the Department of the Treasury's review and impact analysis on the use of Bond Loan proceeds in underserved communities and support the CDFI Fund in proactively managing portfolio risks and performance. The Annual Assessment criteria for Qualified Issuers and Eligible CDFIs is available on the CDFI Fund's Web site.
i. The CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to modify its reporting requirements if it determines it to be appropriate and necessary; however, such reporting requirements will be modified only after notice to Qualified Issuers. Additional information about reporting requirements pursuant to this NOGA, the Bond Documents and the Bond Loan documents will be subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, as applicable.
2. Accounting.
a. In general, the CDFI Fund will require each Qualified Issuer and Eligible CDFI to account for and track the use of Bond Proceeds and Bond Loan proceeds. This means that for every dollar of Bond Proceeds received from the Bond Purchaser, the Qualified Issuer is required to inform the CDFI Fund of its uses, including Bond Loan proceeds. This will require Qualified Issuers and Eligible CDFIs to establish separate administrative and accounting controls, subject to the applicable OMB Circulars.
b. The CDFI Fund will provide guidance to Qualified Issuers outlining the format and content of the information that is to be provided on an annual basis, outlining and describing how the Bond Proceeds and Bond Loan proceeds were used.
A.
B.
C.
The CDFI Fund may conduct webcasts, webinars, or information sessions for organizations that are considering applying to, or are interested in learning about, the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program. The CDFI Fund intends to provide targeted outreach to both Qualified Issuer and Eligible CDFI participants to clarify the roles and requirements under the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program. For further information, please visit the CDFI Fund's Web site at
Pub. L. 111-240; 12 U.S.C. 4701,
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of availability; Comment period extension.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published, in the
All comments must be submitted by February 5, 2016.
Submit written comments on the VA BHHCS Reconfiguration Draft EIS online through
Staff Assistant to the Director, VA Black Hills Health Care System, at the address above or by email to
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of Computer Match Program.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines on the Conduct of Matching Programs, notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) intends to conduct a computer matching program with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Data from the proposed match will be used to verify the unearned income of nonservice-connected veterans, and those veterans who are zero percent service-connected (noncompensable), whose eligibility for VA medical care is based on their inability to defray the cost of medical care. These veterans supply household income information that includes their spouses and dependents at the time of application for VA health care benefits.
Written comments may be submitted through
Corrie Kittles, Acting Director, VHA
The Department of Veterans Affairs has statutory authorization under 38 U.S.C. 5317, 38 U.S.C. 5106, 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7)(D)(viii) and 5 U.S.C. 552a to establish matching agreements and request and use income information from other agencies for purposes of verification of income for determining eligibility for benefits. 38 U.S.C. 1710(a)(2)(G), 1710(a)(3), and 1710(b) identify those veterans whose basic eligibility for medical care benefits is dependent upon their financial status. Eligibility for nonservice-connected and zero percent noncompensable service-connected veterans is determined based on the veteran's inability to defray the expenses for necessary care as defined in 38 U.S.C. 1722. This determination can affect their responsibility to participate in the cost of their care through copayments and their assignment to an enrollment priority group. The goal of this match is to obtain IRS unearned income information data needed for the income verification process. The VA records involved in the match are “Enrollment and Eligibility Records—VA” (147VA16). IRS will extract return information with respect to unearned income from the Information Return Master File (IRMF) Process File, Treas/IRS 22.061, through the Disclosure of Information to Federal, State and Local Agencies (DIFSLA) program. A copy of this notice has been sent to both Houses of Congress and OMB.
This matching agreement expires 18 months after its effective date. This match will not continue past the legislative authorized date to obtain this information.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Nabors II, Chief of Staff, approved this document on December 16, 2015 for publication.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
| 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 |